Freeman v University of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 612

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Freeman v University of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 612 Date: 20210804 Docket: 2101 05892 Registry: Calgary Between: Tony Freeman Plaintiff - and - University of Alberta, and Canadian Natural Resources Limited Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On May 10, 2021, Tony Freeman [Mr.

Freeman] filed with the Court a Statement of Claim that named the University of Alberta [U of A] and Canadian Natural Resources Limited [CNRL] as Defendants [Lawsuit #2]. Succinctly, Mr. Freeman alleges two stages of wrongdoing:

1. Mr. Freeman alleges he was wrongly terminated as an employee of CNRL because Mr. Freeman was a “whistleblower” who had identified and was disclosing that CNRL was attempting to evade disclosure of environmental harm caused by its activities. 2. After ceasing to be employed by CNRL, Mr. Freeman was employed as a researcher by the U of A. Mr. Freeman anticipated his job would be indefinite, but, instead, his contract ended after three mo\ths. Mr. Freeman alleges that CNRL interfered with his U of A employment, and that resulted in the U of A not continuing to employ Mr. Freeman. [ 2 ] Mr.

Freeman in the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim demands disclosure of documents, and a lump sum of $500,000 from either U of A or CNRL for lost income, pain and suffering, bad-faith termination, “Aggravated damages”, “Punitive damages”, “Wallace damages”, and “unprofessional conduct, misrepresentation, negligence, tort, and breach of privacy laws”. [ 3 ] On July 6, 2021, Counsel for CNRL, by letter, referred the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6.

I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. CNRL took the position that the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim is collateral attack on a different action, Freeman v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , Docket 1701 00665 [Lawsuit #1]. Lawsuit #1 was terminated in part when Master Farrington on July 5, 2018 ordered

summary dismissal, and then the remainder of Lawsuit #1 was struck out when Mr. Freeman failed to pay security for costs on June 1, 2021. [ 4 ] After a review of Mr. Freeman’s Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim and certain documents provided by CNRL, I concluded, in a decision reported as Freeman v University of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 543 [ Freeman #1 ] , that the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. Mr.

Freeman was asked to prepare a Written Submission of up to ten pages that explained why the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim is not a collateral attack on the now terminated Lawsuit #1 proceeding [ Freeman #1 at para 20] . [ 5 ] The Court also received a separate CPN7 referral of the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim from the U of A. No response was made by the Court to that referral pending completion of the CPN7 process initiated by Freeman #1 . [ 6 ] Mr. Freeman made a Written Submission on July 25, 2021. Written Replies were received from CNRL on July 29, 2021, and from the U of A on July 31, 2021. Mr.

Freeman, on July 31, 2021, made a further response outside the CPN7 process, alleging CNRL “... are playing a malicious game ... that would cause tremendous injustice ...” and requesting a hearing “... to clarify things. ...”. I have disregarded Mr. Freeman’s July 31, 2021 submissions because it adds nothing relevant to the CPN7 process. II CPN7 Analysis A. Preliminary Issue - Evidence and Documents Submitted by Mr. Freeman [ 7 ] Mr.

Freeman in his Written Submission, dated July 25, 2021, references a number of documents that are attached to his Written Submission as Exhibits A-E. [ 8 ] Exhibit A is Freeman #1 , and Exhibit B is a subsequent July 22, 2021 letter from myself to the Parties in Lawsuit #2. Exhibit C is the Lawsuit #1 Statement of Claim, and Exhibit D is the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim. These items are admissible, and Exhibits C and D have already been considered as evidence in relation to whether Mr.

Freeman’s Lawsuit #2 should be struck out as an abuse of the Court: Freeman #1 at paras 9, 18 . [ 9 ] Exhibit E is a June 12, 2021 email from Mr. Freeman to Counsel for CNRL. Mr. Freeman says this correspondence is relevant because it indicates whether he is pursuing litigation against CNRL. A CPN7 review has a very narrow and limited focus, and operates only to examine a single document and its content : Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24- 48 .

Normally, no other document is considered, except for very narrow exceptions: Freeman #1 at paras 9-10 . [ 10 ] The Exhibit E document is also inadmissible as CPN7 is a mechanism to conduct a Rule 3.68 procedure. Rule 3.68(3) excludes evidence - if “... a commencement document or pleading is frivolous, irrelevant or improper ...”, or not, without consideration of evidence. I, therefore, put no weight on the Exhibit E correspondence, or, for that matter, other factual allegations that Mr. Freeman has made in his Written Submission.

Those are irrelevant to the critical question of whether or not the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court. B. Collateral Attack [ 11 ] In Freeman #1 at paras 11-12 , I reviewed the law concerning what kinds of litigation are collateral attacks, and why courts prohibit litigation that is a collateral attack. Freeman #1 at paras 13-18 then details how Mr. Freeman’s two lawsuits appear to have the same subject. 1. Mr. Freeman [ 12 ] Mr. Freeman, in his Written Submission dated July 25, 2021, makes several points.

First, he distinguishes Lawsuit #1 and Lawsuit #2 by saying these relate to different things, since Lawsuits #1 and #2: ... do not have anything in common, different parties, different grounds, different claims and different causes of actions. Thus, collateral attack by Lawsuit#2 against Lawsuit#1 is impossible. [ 13 ] In particular, Mr. Freeman says Lawsuit #2 did not allege CNRL interfered with Mr. Freeman’s employment at the U of A. Mr. Freeman also accepts CRNL never interfered with his employment with the U of A. He describes his Lawsuit #2 claim against

CNRL as “conditional”, and therefore irrelevant to a CPN7 review. Similarly, Mr. Freeman says Lawsuit #1 is irrelevant to his currentallegations against the U of A, which he says is his only target in Lawsuit #2. [14] Second, Mr. Freeman blames his former lawyer, who represented him in the Lawsuit #1 proceeding, for not following Mr.Freeman’s instructions. Mr. Freeman in particular alleges: ... I refused to file the amended statement of claim [in Lawsuit #1] ... That amended claim simply does not represent my claims inLawsuit #1. [15] Third, Mr.

Freeman argues that there never was a court hearing or decision that addressed the issues raised in Lawsuit #1.Lawsuit #1 therefore decided nothing relevant to Lawsuit #2. 2.

CNRL [16] CNRL calls the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim an “obvious collateral attack”, and states that it should be struck out pursuantto Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 619, noting that Decision also (at para 497) identified collateralattacks as “... amongst the most obnoxious forms of litigation misconduct, and that are strictly prohibited.” CNRL argues the Court wascorrect when it concluded that the net effect of the Master Farrington’s April 20, 2018 decision and Master Prowse’s January 20, 2021Order were to end Lawsuit #1. Mr.

Freeman did not appeal those steps, and so Lawsuit #1 is dead. [17] As for Lawsuit #2, its claims relate to the same alleged facts and misconduct as those in Lawsuit #1. The fact that Mr.Freeman now appears to have abandoned his claim against CNRL in relation to Mr. Freeman’s relationship with the U of A is bothimmaterial and false. The plain language of Lawsuit #2 is that Mr. Freeman seeks $500,000 from CNRL. Mr.

Freeman has continued hisclaim against CNRL, and, for the purposes of Rule 3.68, that is all that matters. [18] CNRL seeks to have the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim struck out, and an award of $2,025 in costs. In the alternative, CNRLargues the Court should order Mr. Freeman pay $15,000 in security for costs, so that Mr. Freeman has not operationally circumventedthe January 20, 2021 Order of Master Prowse. 3. U of A [19] The U of A observes that the now terminated Amended Lawsuit #1 Statement of Claim explicitly alleges CNRL interferedwith Mr. Freeman’s employment with the U of A, and that Mr.

Freeman sought to add the U of A and the Association of ProfessionalEngineers and Geoscientists of Alberta as parties to Lawsuit #1. [20] Furthermore, the U of A notes that the Amended Lawsuit #1 Statement of Claim and Lawsuit #2 overlap in time. Thatdemonstrates Mr. Freeman started Lawsuit #2 with the intention that he could thereby avoid the security for costs order issued by MasterProwse in Lawsuit #1. Furthermore, the U of A notes that Mr. Freeman’s current submissions are that there was no impropercommunication between CNRL and the U of A, which factually subverts Mr.

Freeman’s overall claim against the U of A. [21] The U of A adopts the remedies identified by CNRL. 4. Analysis [22] I generally accept the submissions of CNRL and the U of A. Mr. Freeman has not rebutted the Freeman #2 conclusion thefactual substance and allegations in Lawsuit #1 and #2 have the same underlying subject. Cahoon v Franks, (SCC),[1967] SCR 455 states that “... there is only one cause of action for a single wrongful or negligent act and damages resulting from thesingle tort must be assessed in the one proceeding ...”. For Mr. Freeman, that was Lawsuit #1, and it is terminated. Mr.

Freeman isincorrect when he says no Court has ruled on his allegations. It was a ruling of this Court that struck out much of the Lawsuit #1 initialStatement of Claim, and a ruling of this Court that set a deadline for Mr. Freeman to pay security for costs. Mr. Freeman appealed neitherdecision. He is now stuck with the results. [23] As for Mr. Freeman’s startling claim that Lawsuits #1 and #2 have nothing in common, I observe, at the very minimum, thatCNRL is a party to both actions. Beyond that, the allegations in each pleading are obviously either identical or related. Mr.

Freemansaying otherwise does not make it so. The same is true for his claim that somehow CNRL’s potential liability is “conditional”. That isnot the jeopardy created by the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim. It demands $500,000 from CNRL, plain and simple. In fact, it goesfurther, and unilaterally imposes “hoops” that both named Defendants are, in effect, asked to leap through. [24] If Mr. Freeman wanted to end CNRL’s jeopardy he could have discontinued his claim against CNRL. He did not. [25] The U of A argues Mr. Freeman used Lawsuit #2 to evade court management of Lawsuit #1.

I accept that the admissible factsestablish that on a balance of probability. Persons are presumed to intend the natural result of their actions. Here, Lawsuit #2, and itsrelationship to how Lawsuit #1 ended, established Mr. Freeman’s intention. He filed Lawsuit #2 in an illegitimate and illegal attempt tocontinue the dispute he started in Lawsuit #1. [26] I therefore conclude that Mr. Freeman has not rebutted that Lawsuit #2 is a collateral attack on the now terminated Lawsuit#1. Instead, I conclude Lawsuit #2 is a collateral attack on Lawsuit #1, and a prohibited abuse of process.

I therefore order the Lawsuit#2 Statement of Claim is struck out entirely. III. Conclusion

[ 27 ] Mr. Freeman’s Docket 2101 05892 Statement of Claim is struck out in toto pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Rule 3.68. Mr. Freeman’s Lawsuit #2 Action was a collateral attack on prior Decisions of this Court, and so Lawsuit #2 abused the Court, its processes, and the Defendants. Mr.

Freeman knowingly and deliberately abused the Court’s processes to evade Lawsuit #1 litigation management steps. [ 28 ] Since Lawsuit #2 is now terminated there is no need to evaluate the U of A’s referral of the Lawsuit #2 Statement of Claim for CPN7 review. [ 29 ] When an action, application, or claim is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g.

Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9 ; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta , 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43 ; Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6 . I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. [ 30 ] The Defendants seek $2,025 in costs. Mr. Freeman shall pay each Defendant that amount, forthwith. Counsel for CNRL will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Freeman’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr.

Freeman may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to: ttfreeman@gmail.com. [ 31 ] I very strongly recommend that Mr. Freeman obtain professional legal advice in relation to his litigation. His developing pattern of abusive litigation risks serious future costs, court-imposed penalties, and court access restriction consequences. Mr. Freeman may also contact a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, or the University of Calgary Student Legal Assistance program. I believe Mr.

Freeman would greatly benefit from this kind of assistance in pursuing (or not pursuing) his complaints and concerns. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4 th day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Tony Freeman Self-represented Litigant Gina A. Ross Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP for the Defendant Canadian Natural Resources Limited Scott Matheson Field Law For the Defendant University of Alberta