Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP, 2021 ABQB 842

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP, 2021 ABQB 842 Date: 20211025 Docket: 1406 00800, 4806 016959 Registry: Lethbridge Between: Sharon Joy Lydia Fletcher Applicant - and - Davidson & Williams LLP, Soby Boyden Benz LLP, Foster LLP, Moe Hannah LLP, Herbert R. Beswick, Robert V.T. Boyden, Elaine L. Lenz, Ronald S. Foster, Lianne M. Cihlar, and Douglas Moe Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D.

Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Sharon Joy Lydia Fletcher [Ms. Fletcher] was declared a vexatious litigant and made subject to court access restrictions on February 13, 2018 by an Order of Miller J issued in relation to Fletcher v Davidson & Williams , Docket 1406 00800 (Alta QB). Ms. Fletcher’s further abusive conduct subsequently led to expanded court access restrictions, as reported in Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 and Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2020 ABQB 15 .

[ 2 ] Despite these steps, and the repeated instruction of Justices of this Court, Ms. Fletcher persistently continued her practice of sending packets of documents to Justices of this Court that purportedly give effect to some kind of pseudolegal default judgment. Justice Miller classified these materials as incomprehensible, meaningless, and seeking “remedies unknown to law”. [ 3 ] On October 26, 2020, in a decision reported as Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2020 ABQB 650 [ Fletcher #3 ], at para 11 , I provided detailed instructions to Ms.

Fletcher on how she may properly seek leave to initiate Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench proceedings by seeking leave to file materials. Ms. Fletcher then ignored that instruction, and, on February 18, 2021, sent a further packet of meaningless and abusive documents to the Court that purport to impose some kind debt, continuing her pattern of misconduct and abuse of the leave to file process documented in Fletcher #3 . Ms.

Fletcher’s February 18, 2021 document packet was rejected for filing: Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2021 ABQB 125 [ Fletcher #4 ]. [ 4 ] In Fletcher #4 , at para 6 , I strongly cautioned Ms. Fletcher that her continuing to waste the Court’s time and resources by submitting spurious documents that purport to impose large debts would have consequences: ... I very strongly urge Ms. Fletcher consult with a lawyer concerning these matters, which are closed: Fletcher #3 at para 12 . As I indicated in Fletcher #3 at para 12 , if Ms.

Fletcher continues to abuse the leave to file process she faces negative consequences. This decision is Ms. Fletcher’s last warning . [Emphasis added.] [ 5 ] On October 22, 2021, my office received another packet of documents from Ms. Fletcher: 1. A document titled “Default Trust Estate Judgement Award”, that purports to somehow originate from the Supreme Court of Canada, but appears to be a draft order. I note that according to the Supreme Court of Canada docket records, Ms. Fletcher has never been involved in any proceeding before that Court. 2. Documents titled “Brief

Summary for Trust Account by Estate Trust Destruction” (dated July 11, 2021), “Brief

Summary for Trust Account by Estate Trust Destruction II” (dated July 18, 2021), “Brief

Summary for Trust Account by Estate Trust Destruction III” (dated September 11, 2021) and “Brief

Summary for Trust Account by Estate Trust Destruction IV” (dated October 7, 2021), each addressed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench administrative justices. 3. A document titled “Statement of Trust Account” that mimic Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Form 13, and says that the Defendants in several actions and the Law Society of Alberta have forfeited their right to challenge a $450 million “Statement of Claim for Damages” that Ms. Fletcher says she has imposed. [ 6 ] These documents appear superficially to be court materials, but their form and content are nonsense. These items clearly continue Ms.

Fletcher’s pseudolegal scheme to somehow unilaterally impose penalties on those she has unsuccessfully, and repeatedly, sued: Fletcher #3 ; Fletcher #4 . [ 7 ] In my view, the preferable step when an abusive litigant such as Ms. Fletcher persistently misuses the Court’s leave to appeal process would be a requirement that Ms. Fletcher may only submit future leave to file applications via a lawyer.

That was a common practice by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and is the approach currently applied by many courts in other Canadian jurisdictions (reviewed in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 817-826 ; recently applied in Lochner v Ontario Civilian Police Commission , 2020 ONCA 720 ). However, Slatter JA in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 ruled that mandatory lawyer representation is absolutely prohibited as imposing an expense on litigation, apparently a breach of litigant constitutional rights.

This Court instead now imposes fines upon abusive litigants who misuse the Court’s leave to file process: McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 601 , leave to appeal refused 2021 ABCA 321 . [ 8 ] Ms. Fletcher has ignored my warnings in Fletcher #3 and Fletcher #4 . I promised there would be consequences for doing so. I, therefore, order that Ms. Fletcher is to immediately pay the Clerk of the Court $1,000 as a “Penalty for contravening rules”, pursuant to Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 10.49(1) . In these circumstances that additional step is necessary, incremental, and proportionate because Ms.

Fletcher has not responded to any previous Court instructions, and litigation and litigant management steps. [ 9 ] The Court will prepare the Order imposing the penalty. Ms. Fletcher’s approval of that Order is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). [ 10 ] Mindful of my obligations to self-represented litigants concerning their litigation options, as set in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , if Ms. Fletcher disagrees with this Decision, then her recourse is to file an appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal. Dated at the City of Lethbridge, Alberta this 25 th day of October, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

Sharon Joy Lydia Fletcher Self-Represented Litigant