JSG (Re), 2021 ABQB 555

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: JSG (Re), 2021 ABQB 555 Date: 20210720 Docket: 2103 10773 Registry: Edmonton Between: JSG Respondent Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act ,

section 126.2. No person shall publish the name or photograph of a child or of the child's parent or guardian in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 9, 2021, the Clerk of the Court referred to me problematic conduct by JSG, a litigant before this Court.

JSG is active in multiple proceedings before the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, however the central focus of JSG’s activity involves the status of a child of JSG. That child was apprehended by the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement in 2014, and that led to a Permanent Guardianship Order: JSG v Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director), 2016 ABQB 510 at paras 48-49 [ JSG #1 ], appeal abandoned (10 May 2016), Edmonton 1603-0007AC (Alta CA). JSG was restricted from further contact with her child until JSG completed psychiatric treatment: JSG #1 at para 53 .

[2] JSG unsuccessfully appealed the Permanent Guardianship Order: JSG #1 at para 122. The child was adopted in 2018.Subsequently, JSG applied to this Court to set aside the Adoption Order, alleging fraud. That application was dismissed on April 19,2021: JSG v Alberta (Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement), 2021 ABQB 306 [JSG #2].

JSG was unrepresented duringthe JSG #2 proceeding. [3] JSG is subject to court access restrictions in the Provincial Court of Alberta: JSG v Alberta (Child and Family Services) (18February 2015), Edmonton JFF903002737 (Alta PC). [4] JSG has recently repeatedly engaged in inappropriate and problematic communications with the Court of Queen’s Bench ofAlberta Clerks of the Court (the Clerks). JSG has also repeatedly appeared at the Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench counter (theCounter), where she has been confrontational, argumentative, disruptive, and abusive.

JSG has refused to cooperate with organizationaland safety procedures, such as ignoring the social distanced client lines at the Counter. JSG has said she has clandestinely recorded herinteractions with the Clerks, contrary to Court policy. [5] The Clerks have now repeatedly required the attendance of the Sheriffs to control and remove JSG. [6] JSG’s court activities are at no cost to herself because she has a fee waiver.

That has led to a considerable anddisproportionate workload for the Clerks, particularly multiple search requests. [7] For example, recently JSG ordered a search that generated 4,000 pages of materials, and required two days of work by aClerk. When notified that the search product was ready, JSG rejected the search results, and instead demanded a further search. JSGthen appeared at the Counter, and refused to follow instructions.

That led to a confrontation, inappropriate and abusive language by JSG,and, once again, Sheriff intervention was required. [8] The Court has a broad inherent jurisdiction to control its functions, and prevent abuse of its processes: BCGEU v BritishColumbia (Attorney General), (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 214 at para 49, 53 DLR (4th) 241; I H Jacob, “The InherentJurisdiction of the Court” (1970) 23:1 Current Legal Problems 23 at 40-41. That authority extends outside the courtrooms to protectcourt staff. [9] The Clerks are particularly vulnerable to abusive litigants.

Pepall JA in Lochner v Ontario Civilian Police Commission,2020 ONCA 720 at para 18 stressed this fact: Vexatious litigants are a drain on our system of justice. In addition to being a burden on the opposing parties, they are a burden on thejudiciary and court personnel.

At least the judiciary has mechanisms to attempt to address the conduct of vexatious litigants, but courtpersonnel are ill-equipped to do anything when faced with a barrage of telephone calls, emails, and other communications frequentlycharacterized by incendiary and rude remarks. ... (Emphasis added.) [10] Similarly, Justice Shelley of this Court in Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok, 2019 ABQB 196 at para 10 concluded: The Court Clerks serve a critical function as part of the administration of justice in this province. They are the front line of the AlbertaCourt of Queen’s Bench.

They are required to assist litigants and others who have business with the Court. However, the obligation toprovide these services to the public does not extend to them being bullied, abused, or otherwise mistreated in an unfair andunprofessional manner. [11] I conclude that interim communications and litigant management steps should be taken, given JSG’s litigation record, and herrecent inappropriate and abusive conduct. [12] This Court has previously ordered abusive litigants only communicate with the Clerks and other court staff via specificmethods: e.g.

Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 690; McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok. Furthermore,Canadian courts have prohibited personal attendance and interaction with the Clerks and Registries where an abusive litigant has actedinappropriately: e.g. Prefontaine v Canada, 2004 FCA 52; Prefontaine v Canada, 2004 TCC 775; Botar v Braden Equities Inc (7February 2018), Edmonton 1603-11591 (Alta QB): McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok. [13] I conclude both of these processes are warranted with respect to JSG, and, therefore, direct on an interim basis that: 1.

JSG is to only communicate with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in relation to any matter before the Court of Queen’sBench of Alberta or a leave application by: (

i) email, mail, or courier; or (ii) a person authorized under the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8 to act as a representative in the Court of Queen’s Bench ofAlberta. 2. In addition to the restrictions in #1 above, any email communications by JSG to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta must besent only to “James.Stroeder@gov.ab.ca”. 3. For clarity, in respect of #1 above, JSG is prohibited from: (

i) personally appearing at the Counters; and (ii) telephone communications with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Clerks, judicial assistants, trial coordinators, or otherCourt of Queen’s Bench of Alberta staff without an Order of the Chief Justice, or Associate Chief Justice, or her or his designate which permits that contact.

[ 14 ] I find as fact that JSG has abused her fee waiver, particularly by imposing large tasks on the Clerks at no expense to herself, and then rejecting the resulting product. Courts possess an inherent jurisdiction to cancel existing fee waivers that have facilitated abuse of the Court, and to require that the abusive litigant obtain leave prior to seeking a future fee waiver: e.g.

Loughlin v Her Majesty the Queen , 2018 ABQB 45 at paras 36-43 , adopting Ellis v Wernick , 2017 ONSC 1461 at paras 7-11 ; Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 286 ; Martinez v Chaffin (13 February 2019), Calgary 1901-0024AC (Alta CA); reviewed in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 884-890 . [ 15 ] I therefore also direct the Clerks to: 1. cancel any existing fee waiver for JSG; and 2. on an interim basis refuse to accept any fee waiver application from JSG unless leave has been granted by myself or my delegate. [ 16 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision.

JSG’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta thi s 20 th day of July, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None