McMunn v Hok, 2021 ABQB 601

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: McMunn v Hok, 2021 ABQB 601 Date: 20210729 Docket: 2104 00343 Registry: Grande Prairie Between: Dawn Michelle McMunn and Phillip Tyler Walker Applicants - and - Shirley Anne Hok Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice D.L. Shelley _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Hok is subject to court access restrictions as a vexatious litigant: Hok v Alberta , 2017 ABCA 63 , leave to appeal dismissed 2017 ABCA 63, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37624 (2 November 2017).

As a consequence, Ms. Hok is prohibited from initiating litigation processes in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, except where Ms. Hok has received permission, or “leave”, from the Court: Hok v Alberta at para 51. Ms. Hok is also subject to restrictions on her communications with the Grande Prairie Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Clerks, and is prohibited from personal attendance at the Court’s Grande Prairie counter, as a consequence of Ms. Hok’s pattern of abusive, inappropriate, irregular, insulting, and conspiratorial allegations, communications, and actions: Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2019 ABQB 196 .

[2] On July 6, 2021, I granted a restraining order against Ms. Hok that had been sought by the Applicants. Ms. Hok and theApplicants are neighbors who live in adjacent residential properties in Grande Prairie, Alberta. [3] Ms. Hok disagreed with the granting of the restraining order. On July 12, 2021, Ms. Hok wrote to the Court, indicating thatshe intended to appeal the restraining order. Ms. Hok also applied for leave to file an Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule14.48 stay pending appeal application.

I denied that leave to file application in a decision reported as McMunn v Hok, 2021 ABQB 550. [4] Since Ms. Hok is a self-represented litigant, in McMunn v Hok at para 40, I provided the following information: Mindful of my obligations to provide information to self-represented litigants concerning their litigation options, as set in Pintea vJohns, 2017 SCC 23, I point out to Ms. Hok that there is no appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal of this decision: Rule 14.5(4). Ms.Hok may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada, if she disagrees with this outcome: e.g.

Thompson, (SCC); Thompson v Nielsen, (SCC). [5] The same day, Ms. Hok wrote to my judicial assistant to demand a “re-processing” of her application for a stay of therestraining order pending her appeal. While I have previously noted that Ms. Hok has been made subject to steps to manage herinteraction with court staff and to engage in litigation, I believe it is helpful to reproduce Ms. Hok’s email to illustrate the manner inwhich Ms.

Hok conducts herself: RE: the request of having a RE-PROCESSING of my highly valid want of having my application-want for PERMISSION-to-court-file a STAY-PENDING-APPEAL-want; etc.!!!! Do be aware that I have the Principles of Fundamental Justice's ~constitutionally guaranteed LEGAL-RIGHT to have my civil-request by an ethically-motivated, competent, FAIR adjudicator; etc.!!!! So then, what that thusly then means is that you do NOT shove-over me to have anything what-so-ever to be dealt with via the severelyunethical, corrupt QB-Madam-Justice/D.L.

Shelley . . . and I have the guns of my back-work's test-results to back me up about that etc. Be aware that it is reprehensible about the defamatory-libelous malicious accusations that QB-Shelley has openly maliciously falselyrepeated against me (without any MERIT'S BACKING) and has openly web-PUBLISHED; etc.!!! So then, what that thusly meansis that QB-Madam-Justice/D.L. Shelley is a KILLING-PIG sitting on the public-service-giving bench openly abusing her publicly-paid position for ulterior, unethical motives; etc.!!!!

Additionally, do be aware that I have (since at least that of grade nine) an IQ thatis HIGHER than that of MOST judges/justices . . . and I have been overtly WHISTLELBOWING against such reprehensible, vulgar 2-faced public-service-givers as that of that QB-Madam-Justice/D.L. Shelley; etc.!!! [Explosion graphic] POINT: be aware that I have already been severely unethically violated and damaged by that QB-Madam-Justice/D.L.

Shelley . . . and that STAY-PENDING-APPEAL-want is against her egregious REPREHENSIBLE, ILLEGALLY-granted QB-Restraining-Order of July 6/2021 against ---- > whereby QB-Shelley had allowed one deliberately fabricated malicious LIEafter another LIE after another LIE after another LIE(+) . . . and I had given PROOOOOOF (by my many, many, many SwornExhibits) of those ILLEGAL LIES/LIES/LIES/LIES(+) conned-up to do HARM of me via those two pathological-lying Plaintiffs;etc.!!!

So then, the point of this gmail is --- > is that there is to be NOTHING of mine (OR about me) that is to be processed by that conning,2-faced dirty-judge/QB-Madam-Justice D.L. Shelley; etc.!!!!!! Therefore then, do read back to that of MY "Notice of Application for PERMISSION to court-file Application/Affidavit for a STAY-PENDING-APPEAL(+) . . . of Shirley A. Hok" --- > and view it's page #5's paragraph #16 (Applicable rules:) that states: AlbertaRules of Court

Part 14:48(b); etc. . . . meaning that it had been ILLEGAL for QB-Madam-Justice/D.L. Shelley to have been the entityto do the administrative-processing of my very valid want of having permission; etc.!!!! And, I am attaching my pdf-copy of only that of: Notice of Application for PERMISSION to court-file Application/Affidavit for aSTAY-PENDING-APPEAL(+) . . . of Shirley A. Hok . . . for my reconsideration's want that you pay attention to my very-blatant,legal-want's request to have my matter dealt with someone OTHER that that of that QB-Madam-Justice/D.L. Shelley; etc. And, so seethat of: page #5's paragraph #16 (Applicable rules:) that states: Alberta Rules of Court

Part 14:48(b); etc. --- > and have this properly,competently, ethically re-processed (re-considered) by having it tended to/dealt with ASAP . . . on the overt-grounds of it having beenUNETHICALLY, ILLEGALLY(+) put before that QB-Madam-Justice/D.L. Shelley; etc. Regards; Shirley A. Hok / The Applicant-TARGET of massive OPPRESSIVE political REPRESSION(+). [Sic, emphasis in original.] [6] This communication is typical, or even a somewhat restrained version, of how Ms. Hok regularly communicates with theCourt and its staff. This Court has repeatedly cautioned Ms.

Hok that her manner of communication is inappropriate, and found that Ms.Hok’s allegations and demands are inappropriate, harassing, offensive, abusive, and vexatious, e.g. R v Hok, 2016 ABQB 335; Hok vAlberta, 2016 ABQB 651; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok, 2018 ABQB 316; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok, 2019 ABQB 196;Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok, 2019 ABQB 337; McMunn v Hok, 2021 ABQB 550. Ms. Hok has been told what she does is wrong,and been cautioned and sanctioned when she ignores those instructions. As her June 16, 2021 email illustrates, unfortunately Ms. Hok’sapproach has not changed. [7] Ms.

Hok appears to be seeking an interim stay pending appeal of the July 6, 2021 restraining order pursuant to Rule14.48(b). Rule 14.48(

b) reads: An application to stay proceedings or enforcement of a decision pending appeal may be made ... to a single appeal judge, whether or not

the application was made to the judge who made the decision, and whether or not that application was granted or dismissed. [Emphasis added.] [ 8 ] Appeals of a decision of a justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench are conducted by the Alberta Court of Appeal. Rule 14.48 (

b) provides that Ms. Hok may seek a stay pending appeal by filing an application with the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 9 ] Ms. Hok was informed on July 19, 2021 by email that she should direct her Rule 14.48 (

b) application to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Ms. Hok again replied by email the same day, in her characteristic style and form. Ms. Hok rejected that instruction. Ms. Hok, instead, said she gets to dictate how and in what Court her proceedings would advance. Ms. Hok stated she unilaterally chooses what judge should hear her applications, and, more specifically, Ms. Hok denied I may be involved in Ms. Hok’s litigation. [ 10 ] I note, parenthetically, that I was required by Rule 14.48(

a) to be the judge who evaluated Ms. Hok’s initial leave pending appeal application that resulted in McMunn v Hok . [ 11 ] This was not the end of Ms. Hok’s claims to unilaterally reopen the litigation concluded in McMunn v Hok . On July 21, 2021, Ms. Hok emailed the Grande Prairie Clerk of the Court that Ms. Hok was re-opening and continuing the stay pending appeal matter. The Clerk of the Court responded that Ms. Hok’s application had been dismissed. [ 12 ] On July 23, 2021, Ms. Hok continued her complaints, now insisting on “... an ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION by the [Case Management Officer] ...”.

There are no Case Management Officer positions at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. That is an Alberta Court of Appeal position. Ms. Hok continued to demand further Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench steps. If those were not satisfied, Ms. Hok indicated she would be proceeding to “... the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Urgent- action unit ; etc.!!!” [emphasis in original]. [ 13 ] The Grande Prairie Clerks Office reaffirmed that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had no further jurisdiction in this matter, and provided Ms.

Hok with a copy of the McMunn v Hok decision. [ 14 ] This Court, and other Canadian courts, have taken extreme measures that attempt to ensure Ms. Hok has had fair access to court remedies. For that, Ms. Hok has responded with threats, insults, defamation, and, above all else, a complete failure to adhere to even the simplest requirements. Ms. Hok litigates as Ms. Hok chooses, unless she is actively controlled by the Court. [ 15 ] The Court’s resources are not infinite.

Its employees deserve respect as they attempt to serve the public under what are often difficult conditions, and with limited and inadequate resources. Most persons who interact with the Court do so in a respectful manner - that is noted and appreciated, particularly as the Court and litigants have responded to the unusual stressors that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. There are, unfortunately, some exceptions. Ms. Hok is one of them. As I said earlier, Ms.

Hok has been told how she should conduct herself and, if she disagrees with a decision, what she should do to properly pursue that disagreement. [ 16 ] Ms. Hok has ignored that in the past, and ignores that in the present. There are consequences in doing so. I order that Ms. Hok is to immediately pay the Clerk of the Court $2,000 as a “Penalty for contravening rules”, pursuant to Rule 10.49(1). In these circumstances that additional step is necessary, incremental, and proportionate because Ms.

Hok has not responded to any previous Court instruction or sanction. [ 17 ] The Court will prepare the Order imposing the penalty. Ms. Hok’s approval of that Order is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms. Hok may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to: shirleyhok@gmail.com. [ 18 ] Mindful of my obligations to self-represented litigants concerning their litigation options, as set in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , if Ms. Hok disagrees with this Decision, then her recourse is to file an appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Dated at the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta this 29 th day of July, 2021. D.L. Shelley J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Shirley Anne Hok Self-Represented Litigant