Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc, 2021 ABQB 286

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc, 2021 ABQB 286 Date: 20210413 Dockets: 2001 10292, 2001 10725, 2001 12765, 2001 12769, 2001 16014, 2001 16015, 2101 00913, 2101 01669 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket 2001 10292 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Nissan Canada Inc Defendant And between: Docket 2001 10725 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Judy Sharratt and Barry Herchuk Defendants And between: Docket 2001 12765 Janice Dmyterko

Plaintiff - and - EIA (Edmonton International Airport) Defendant And between: Docket 2001 12769 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Cindy Crawford, Rande Gerber, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, and Angelina Jolie Defendants And between: Docket 2001 16014 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Shaw and Shaw Communications Defendants And between: Docket 2001 16015 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Apple Computers and all their named companies Apple Inc.

Defendants And between: Docket 2101 00913 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) Defendant And between: Docket 2101 00913 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Alberta Dental Association and College Defendant And between: Docket 2101 01669 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Rogers Communications

Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. CPN7 [ 1 ] On March 14, 2021, I was referred nine Statements of Claim filed in eight proceedings by Janice Dmyterko [Ms. Dmyterko] as candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 5. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 2 ] Ms.

Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim are handwritten documents that are sometimes difficult to understand. Each was filed pursuant to a fee waiver as authorized by the March 27, 2020 Ministerial Order 22/2020, so Ms. Dmyterko has incurred no costs to initiate her lawsuits. In a decision reported as Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 219 [ Dmyterko #4 ] I concluded that Ms. Dmyterko’s nine Statements of Claim were AVAPs that exhibited characteristics that were prima face abuse of the court and its processes. I therefore stayed the nine Statements of Claim, and requested Ms.

Dmyterko provide an up to 30-page Written Submission that answered three questions: 1. How do the Statements of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendants? 2. How do the Statements of Claim provide extraordinary proof for Ms. Dmyterko’s extraordinary claims? 3. How are the remedies sought in the Statements of Claim not excessive and/or impossible? [ 3 ] The deadline for Ms. Dmyterko’s Written Submission has passed. Nothing has been received. I, therefore, conclude that Ms.

Dmyterko has not rebutted the Dmyterko #4 prima facie conclusion that the nine Statements of Claim are hopeless and abusive proceedings. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2001 10292, 2001 10725, 2001 12765, 2001 12769, 2001 16014, 2001 16015, 2101 00913 (two Statements of Claim), and 2101 01669 Statements of Claim struck out pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68. [ 4 ] No costs flow from this outcome since this Court does not usually order costs when AVAPs are referred pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 565 at para 6 . II. Fee Waivers [ 5 ] Dmyterko #4 does not capture the full extent of Ms. Dmyterko’s recent litigation activity. Between September 1, 2020 and February 4, 2021, Ms.

Dmyterko filed a total of 14 Statements of Claim, whose Defendants included Nissan Canada, a former landlord, the Edmonton International Airport, actor George Clooney, Apple Computers, multiple telecommunications businesses and banks, and the Alberta Dental Association and College. [ 6 ] These actions are now terminated: • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10628 : Dmyterko v British Royal Monarch, British Monarchy, Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Duchess Camilla, Prince William, Duchess Kate, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis, Prince Harry, Meghan Markle - Statement of Claim filed September 9, 2020, discontinued December 2, 2020.

Dmyterko v Telus , 2021 ABQB 175 [ Dmyterko #1 ], actions struck out 2021 ABQB 220 [ Dmyterko #3 ] • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12768 - Dmyterko v Telus • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 01670 - Dmyterko v Koodo Mobile Dmyterko v Simplii Financial , 2021 ABQB 198 [ Dmyterko #2 ], actions struck out 2021 ABQB 251 [ Dmyterko #5 ] • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 01667 - Dmyterko v Simplii Financial • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 01668 - Dmyterko v CIBC Investment Banking

Dmyterko #4 , this decision: • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10292 - Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10725 - Dmyterko v Judy Sharratt and Barry Herchuk • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12765 - Dmyterko v EIA (Edmonton International Airport) • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12769 - George Clooney, Julie Roberts, Cindy Crawford, Rande Gerber, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, and Angelina Jolie • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 16014 - Dmyterko v Shaw and Shaw Communications • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 16015 - Dmyterko v Apple Computers • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 00913 - Dmyterko v RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 00913 - Dmyterko v Alberta Dental Association and College • Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 01669 - Dmyterko v Rogers Communications [ 7 ] Ms.

Dmyterko did not pay any filing fees to initiate these 14 actions because she obtained a fee waiver. I have concluded each of these Statements of Claim, aside from the discontinued Docket 2001 10628 action, were hopeless, and an abuse of the Court’s processes. Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim sought very large amounts, even trillions of dollars in damages.

Her claims are both extraordinary and also amorphous, centering on alleged theft of intellectual property, allegedly masterminded by George Clooney. [ 8 ] Much hopeless and abusive litigation in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is filed at no cost due to fee waivers.

Review of Court docket records show that since CPN7 was first implemented, 41.3% of the Statements of Claim that were struck out as AVAPs were filed at no cost to the abusive litigants because they had fee waivers. [ 9 ] Martin JA observed, in Martinez v Chaffin , 2019 ABCA 216 , that fee waivers are automatically available in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal to anyone who has an income of $26,760 or less. While that facilitates initiating litigation, that also has negative consequences.

In Martinez v Chaffin , a vexatious litigant had conducted abusive proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. Justice Martin observed the outcome at paras 15-16: ... This case offers an example of the unintended consequences of that benign policy. Mr. Martinez is unemployed and is impecunious. He has routinely ignored all cost awards against him and is able to carry on litigating only because it costs him nothing to do so. In the process, defendants like those before me, are taken on Magellan-like voyages though uncharted litigation, at significant legal cost. ...

It is hoped that this decision might prompt the government to reconsider the mandatory waiver of filing fees for the indigent and opt instead to authorize judges of the court to waive those fees, but only where the proposed appeal is found to have some prospect of success. [ 10 ] Justice Martin cancelled Mr. Martinez’s existing fee waiver: Martinez v Chaffin (13 February 2019), Calgary 1901-0024AC (Alta CA). [ 11 ] The same can be said for Ms. Dmyterko. She says she is homeless. Though costs have been awarded against her in Dmyterko #3 and Dmyterko #5 , those awards will not likely ever be collected. Like Mr.

Martinez, Ms. Dmyterko is “judgment proof”. [ 12 ] This Court has an inherent jurisdiction to cancel fee waivers that have facilitated abusive litigation, and to require that the abusive litigant obtain leave prior to seeking future fee waivers: Loughlin v Her Majesty the Queen , 2018 ABQB 45 at paras 36-43 , adopting Ellis v Wernick , 2017 ONSC 1461 at paras 7-11 . I find as fact that Ms. Dmyterko has abused the fee waiver process, and direct the Clerks of the Court to: 1. cancel any existing fee waiver for Ms. Dmyterko, and 2. refuse to accept any fee waiver application from Ms.

Dmyterko unless leave has been granted by Associate Chief Justice Nielsen in Judicial Centres in Red Deer and north, or by myself in Judicial Centres south of Red Deer, or our delegates. III. Court Access Restrictions [ 13 ] This Court has found Ms. Dmyterko has a record of persistently filing hopeless and abusive lawsuits: Dmyterko #1 at paras 19-22 ; Dmyterko #2 at paras 14-17 ; Dmyterko #4 at paras 52-55 . Ms. Dmyterko consistently seeks excessive and impossible remedies: Dmyterko #1 at paras 23-26 ; Dmyterko #2 at paras 18-22 ; Dmyterko #4 at paras 62-67 . [ 14 ] Ms.

Dmyterko’s abuse of the Court cannot be managed by processes such as case management because, when she repeatedly returns to the Court, Ms. Dmyterko files new lawsuits against different and new Defendants. Ms. Dmyterko then does not appear to pursue those filings, at least in Court. [ 15 ] In Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 at para 85 (d), Slatter JA “read down” the explicit authority of this Court to on its own motion initiate Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1 court access restriction proceedings. Slatter JA instead instructed:

Vexatious litigant applications should primarily be litigant driven. While the court has a residual ability to trigger a vexatious litigant application on its own motion, the court should only initiate the process where the litigants have failed to do so after invitation and the overall interests of the administration of justice are engaged, or there is another justification for doing so. [ 16 ] Since I am authorized by Jonsson v Lymer to invite litigants to initiate a Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 court access restriction process, I am directing copies of this decision to the Defendants in all thirteen of Ms.

Dmyterko’s lawsuits. I request that those Defendants respond by May 10, 2021 as to whether one or more of those Defendants will initiate a Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 application in relation to Ms. Dmyterko. IV. Conclusion [ 17 ] Ms. Dmyterko’s 2001 10292, 2001 10725, 2001 12765, 2001 12769, 2001 16014, 2001 16015, 2101 00913, and 2101 01669 Statements of Claim are struck out. No costs are ordered against Ms. Dmyterko. [ 18 ] Any fee waiver for Ms. Dmyterko in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is cancelled. Ms.

Dmyterko is prohibited from applying to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench clerks for a fee waiver, except with leave of the Court as set out in para 12. [ 19 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Dmyterko’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 13 th day of April, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None