Freeman v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2021 ABQB 837

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Freeman v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2021 ABQB 837 Date: 20211021 Docket: 1701 00665 Registry: Calgary Between: Tony Freeman Plaintiff - and - Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. The Freeman v CNRL Docket 1701 00665 Action [ 1 ] On April 20, 2017, Tony Freeman [Mr.

Freeman] filed a Statement of Claim suing Canadian Natural Resources Limited [CNRL] for $1.65 million [ Lawsuit 1 ]. That lawsuit was struck out in part on April 20, 2018 by a decision of Master Farrington: Freeman v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2018 ABQB 310 . Master Farrington permitted certain amendments to Mr. Freeman’s

claims. On January 20, 2021, Master Prowse ordered that Mr. Freeman must pay $15,000 in security for costs to continue Lawsuit #1 . The deadline for that payment was June 1, 2021. No payment of security for costs was made by that date. Mr. Freeman did not appeal either decision by the Masters. The result was that that Lawsuit 1 was automatically terminated on June 1, 2021 . [ 2 ] On October 15, 2021, Mr. Freeman submitted to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench a “Desk Application Without Notice Application” in Lawsuit 1 . Mr.

Freeman, instead of referring to CNRL as the Defendant in this action, identified the Defendant as “Univesity of Alberta (formerly CNRL)” [sic]. Two other documents received at the same time identify the Lawsuit #1 Defendant as “University of Alberta (UofA) Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) ” [striking out in original]. [ 3 ] The handwritten text of the Desk Application reads, in total: I want to file an application for advice and direction. I have spent 4 years and over $50,000 in legal costs for this action. I am looking to conclude that through a Trial.

I will pay security for costs (if needed) for estimated costs of Trial. There is no need for discovery. We just need to know who should be the defendant, U of A or CNRL. New information is disclosed by defendant in the past couple of weeks. The case need to be reviewed by the Court and a path to Trial is presented.

The Court requires a FIAT because there is a note on my file not allowing new applications. [Sic.] [ 4 ] The Desk Application is accompanied by an unfiled Notice of Application, where, in paragraph 1, the “Remedy claims or sought”, reads: Advice or direction from the court toward the next step in this action, such as replacing the UofA as defendant, scheduling the trial for this action, determining the trial attendants and length, the main issues that will be heard in the trial, and any certification that needs to be provided by the parties prior to the trial.

Or any other direction that the Honorable Court recommends for concluding this action. [ 5 ] Mr. Freeman also included an Affidavit that he swore on October 15, 2021. Much of that Affidavit relates to other litigation that I will subsequently discuss, but also confirms that Mr. Freeman seeks to continue Lawsuit 1 with the University of Alberta [UofA] as the Defendant. In

summary, Mr. Freeman demands a trial of Lawsuit #1 . [ 6 ] Mr. Freeman’s materials are not accurate. Mr. Freeman does not need a fiat to file further documents or take steps in Lawsuit #1 . There is no Lawsuit #1 to continue. Lawsuit #1 was terminated on June 1, 2021, and that is the end of that matter . There will never be a trial of Lawsuit #1 , no matter what. I find, as fact and law, that Mr. Freeman is attempting to resurrect a dead lawsuit, and switch out Defendants in a manner that is not permitted in law. Mr. Freeman intentionally misrepresented the status of Lawsuit #1 in his filings.

I find, as fact, that Mr. Freeman knows that this Court has found that Lawsuit #1 ended on June 1, 2021 . What Mr. Freeman is attempting to do is illegal, an abuse of this Court and its processes, intended to abuse CNRL and the UofA, and Mr. Freeman knows that. [ 7 ] Mr. Freeman’s Desk Application is dismissed. I will not order costs or other penalties against Mr. Freeman because to do so is pointless. Mr. Freeman ignores Court rulings and the Alberta Rules of Court . He litigates as he chooses.

In these circumstances, a separate litigant control-step may now be necessary: court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1. II. Mr. Freeman’s Record of Abusive Litigation [ 8 ] While Lawsuit #1 was in its final phases, Mr. Freeman initiated two other lawsuits. Mr. Freeman filed a new Statement of Claim on May 10, 2021, naming the UofA and CNRL as co-Defendants [ Lawsuit #2 ]. In brief, Mr. Freeman attempted to re-litigate his Lawsuit #1 claim. That led to a Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] process where Mr.

Freeman was required to explain how Lawsuit #2 was a valid action: Freeman v University of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 543 . Lawsuit #2 was subsequently struck out in a decision, reported as Freeman v University of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 612 , where I concluded: 1. Lawsuit #2 was a prohibited collateral attack and attempt to re-litigate Lawsuit #1 (paras 22-26), and 2. Mr. Freeman used Lawsuit #2 to evade court management of Lawsuit #1 ; Lawsuit #2 was “... an illegitimate and illegal attempt to continue the dispute [Mr. Freeman] started in Lawsuit #1.” [ 9 ] Mr.

Freeman has not appealed Freeman v University of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 612 . [ 10 ] At the same time as Lawsuit #2 was underway, Mr. Freeman also sued the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta [APEGA], alleging APEGA was negligent in its role in the disputes between Mr. Freeman, and CNRL and the UofA [ Lawsuit #3 ]. Mr. Freeman demanded either $500,000 in damages from APEGA, or that APEGA pay for the conduct of Lawsuit #1 , with that proceeding under Mr. Freeman’s control. Mr. Freeman demanded APEGA pay for a lawyer to represent Mr.

Freeman in Lawsuit #1 , pay security for costs, and for any other “necessary” lawsuits or targeting of existing or additional defendants. APEGA, and not Mr. Freeman, would be solely responsible for any negative outcomes of that litigation. [ 11 ] Lawsuit #3 was also the subject of a CPN7 review ( Freeman v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 556 ), and then struck out as an abuse of the Court ( Freeman v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 682 ). I concluded: 1.

Lawsuit #3 was hopeless because APEGA is protected by statutory immunity (paras 12-16); 2. Lawsuit #3 was a collateral attack on Lawsuits #1 and #2 , and administrative procedure decisions of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, and therefore an abuse of the Court (paras 17-26); 3. Mr. Freeman had failed to exhaust his procedural steps in relation to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, a further abuse of the Court (paras 23-26);

4. Lawsuit #3 sought impossible remedies (paras 27-35) by:

a) attempting, without any legal basis, to force APEGA to fund Mr. Freeman’s litigation, to be conducted as Mr. Freeman so chose, and that APEGA would face all negative consequences that followed, not Mr. Freeman; and

b) seeking excessive or impossible damages without any alleged factual basis. [ 12 ] I concluded Freeman v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 682 with this paragraph: In [ Freeman v University of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 612 ] at para 31, I very strongly recommended Mr. Freeman seek professional legal advice in relation to his litigation, since his expanding pattern of abusive litigation risks serious future costs, court-imposed penalties, and court access restriction consequences. I repeat that recommendation. Mr.

Freeman should expect more significant and elevated sanctions, and litigation and litigant management steps, if he continues to initiate court proceedings that attempt to re-litigate settled issues. [ 13 ] Mr. Freeman has ignored that recommendation. That means further steps may be necessary. III. Court Access Restrictions [ 14 ] Mr. Freeman has now, for the third time , attempted to continue his dispute against CNRL and the UofA without any legal basis, and contrary to court decisions dismissing his litigation. Mr.

Freeman has established a pattern of repeatedly and persistently taking prohibited litigation steps to continue and expand this dispute. He attempts to relitigate the same issues. I have concluded that Mr. Freeman does this as a tactic: he uses new legal proceedings, or in this case an attempt to “resurrect” a dismissed lawsuit, to evade this Court’s attempts to manage Mr. Freeman’s litigation activities. [ 15 ] Attempts to restrain or control Mr. Freeman within the confines of a single lawsuit are useless. When Lawsuit #1 faced termination because Mr. Freeman would not pay the security for costs ordered, Mr.

Freeman first started a new lawsuit, Lawsuit #2 , that attempted to recycle the subject matter of the Lawsuit #1 , but also sued to force APEGA, a third party, to pay for his litigation via Lawsuit #3 . Now, Mr. Freeman simply ignored that Lawsuit #1 is over, and, instead, sought to graft a new Defendant head onto the dead body of his initial action. Mr. Freeman simply will not play by the rules, no matter how often he cites legislation, the Rules of Court , and case judgments. [ 16 ] Case management of Mr. Freeman is pointless, since Mr. Freeman attempts to start new lawsuits to evade litigation management.

He has demonstrated that court decisions and orders that seek to modulate, block, or terminate his lawsuits mean nothing to him. He simply starts new processes, even when he knows they have no basis. [ 17 ] Given these circumstances, I conclude that additional steps are necessary to manage Mr. Freeman. Steps inside his lawsuits to “manage his litigation” have failed and are useless. The next possible step is to expand the Court’s response to manage Mr.

Freeman as a litigant via court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1. [ 18 ] Slatter JA, in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 , largely rejected this Court’s inherent jurisdiction to engage in prospective litigation management. Further, at para 85(d), Slatter JA “read down” the explicit authority of this Court to on its own motion initiate Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 court access restriction proceedings. Slatter JA instead dictated: 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. (Emphasis added). [ 19 ] 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 request that any of CNRL, the UofA, and APEGA indicate by November 19, 2021 whether or not one or more of the Defendants will take that step. [ 20 ] In the meantime, I order that Mr.

Freeman is subject to further interim court access restrictions. Mr. Freeman’s approval of the interim court access restriction Order is dispensed with per Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the interim court access Order shall be served upon Mr. Freeman by email to: ttfreeman@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 21 st day of October, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Tony Freeman Self-Represented Litigant