Onischuk (Re), 2021 ABQB 828

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Onischuk (Re), 2021 ABQB 828 Date: 20211019 Docket: 1903 06561 Registry: Edmonton Between: Daniel William Onischuk Applicant _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Chief Justice M.T. Moreau _______________________________________________________ [1] Daniel William Onischuk [Mr.

Onischuk] is subject to strict and global court access restrictions in Alberta Courts thatprohibits him for initiating or continuing litigation, except with permission - “leave” - of the Court: Onischuk v Alberta, 2013 ABCA129, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 35472 (23 January 2014); Onischuk v Edmonton, 2017 ABQB 647; Onischuk (Re), 2017 ABQB659. Mr. Onischuk is a “vexatious litigant”. [2] On April 1, 2019, Justice Nielsen (as he then was) denied Mr. Onischuk’s application for leave to oppose probate of hismother’s estate, and re-open litigation that was terminated in 2017 and where Mr.

Onischuk had not sought appeal: Onischuk (Re), 2019ABQB 229. At para 19 Justice Nielsen concluded that the court access restrictions imposed on Mr. Onischuk meant “[Mr. Onischuk] isnot permitted to make further applications in relation to the subjects identified in his March 22, 2019 letter, since this rejection is final...”. [3] On October 14, 2021, my office received a fax from Mr. Onischuk with the subject: “RE: Onischuk (Re), 2019 ABQB 229In the attached letter, Mr.

Onischuk states he “... writes to request leave to appeal the decision of Judge Nielsen to deny menormal beneficiary rights or to otherwise be given leave to self-represent myself regarding my late parents estates.” [sic]. Mr. Onischukcontinues to identify what he says are issues with the Onischuk (Re), 2019 ABQB 229 decision. [4] This Court has no jurisdiction to “appeal” Onischuk (Re), 2019 ABQB 229, or otherwise grant leave to Mr. Onischuk inrelation to subjects covered in his 2019 leave to file application. The Onischuk (Re), 2019 ABQB 229 decision is final. Mr.

Onischuk’s“request” is therefore rejected. [5] Mindful of my obligations per Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23 to identify litigation alternatives to self-represented litigants,such as Mr. Onischuk, I note that r 14.5(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 prohibits any appeal of Onischuk (Re),2019 ABQB 229 to the Alberta Court of Appeal: “No appeal is allowed ... from an order denying the vexatious litigant permission toinstitute or continue proceedings.” However, the combination of r 14.5(4), and Supreme Court Act, RSC 1985, c S-26, s 37, means thatMr.

Onischuk may seek leave to appeal Onischuk (Re), 2019 ABQB 229 from the Supreme Court of Canada, see e.g. Thompson, 2019

5926 (SCC); Thompson v Nielsen, (SCC). Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 19th day of October, 2021. M.T. Moreau C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Daniel William Onischuk Self-represented Litigant