Miller v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2021 ABQB 852

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Miller v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2021 ABQB 852 Date: 20211028 Docket: 2003 12659 Registry: Edmonton Between: Glenn D. Miller Plaintiff - and - Alberta Human Rights Commission Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On August 14, 2020, Glenn D. Miller (Mr. Miller) filed a Statement of Claim that named the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) as the Defendant. In brief, Mr.

Miller’s Statement of Claim alleges in 2018 Mr. Miller’s landlord cancelled his housing rental subsidy in a manner that Mr. Miller calls illegal, with the effect of increasing Mr. Miller’s monthly rent. Mr. Miller claims that led to the landlord “wrongfully and illegally” taking $13,000 from Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller states he stopped paying rent in August, 2020. [ 2 ] Mr. Miller filed an AHRC complaint against his landlord. Mr. Miller alleged that the AHRC was negligent since the AHRC “... never fulfilled its incumbent duty to accommodate to the expedite the complaints ...” (sic). Mr.

Miller also claims that the AHRC

failed “... to provide an interim decision to grant me financial relief from the illegal housing subsidy cancellation inflicted by my landlord ...”, and that was a breach of the AHRC’s “duty to accommodate”. [ 3 ] Mr. Miller concluded: The AHRC has acted with reckless, callous, and wanton disregard and with malicious indifference to my financial hardship and mentally stressed condition. On that basis Mr.

Miller demanded $300,000 in “... damages for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance”, and a written apology by the AHRC Director and Chief posted on the AHRC website. [ 4 ] On June 24, 2021, Counsel for the AHRC wrote the Clerk of the Court to refer Mr. Miller’s Statement of Claim as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6.

I have received and examined that referral since I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 5 ] I concluded in a decision reported as Miller v Alberta (Human Rights Commission) , 2021 ABQB 696 ( Miller #1 ) that the Statement of Claim is an AVAP since this filing had elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. Mr. Miller’s Statement of Claim was therefore an appropriate candidate for a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . Mr.

Miller was asked to provide, within 14 days, an up to ten-page Written Submission that responded to five questions: 1) Why is any claim by Mr. Miller against the AHRC not prohibited by Alberta Human Rights Act , ss 18, 41? 2) Why is the Statement of Claim not a collateral attack on unchallenged decisions of the AHRC? 3) How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 4) Why is the Statement of Claim not an abuse of the Court because Mr.

Miller had an alternative judicial review remedy? 5) How is the remedy sought in the Statement of Claim not excessive or impossible? ( Miller #1 at para 36 ). [ 6 ] On September 16, 2021, Mr. Miller by email requested an extension of at least two months because Mr. Miller was undergoing treatment for clinical depression. I, by letter, extended the time for Mr. Miller to provide his Written Submission to November 19, 2021. [ 7 ] Mr. Miller again wrote my office on October 25, 2021.

In this communication he stated: I have decided I will not defend the CPN7 AVAP proceeding of my statement of claim against the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Although my depression has lifted somewhat, I am still finding it difficult to concentrate to think clearly to produce answers that might be worthwhile to give. In truth I can find no good reasons to defend this statement of claim. Please remember that I am on AISH and I ask that you attach no financial penalty to me when you strike the statement of claim. It was a big mistake to file this statement of claim. [ 8 ] Since Mr.

Miller acknowledges there is no basis for his lawsuit against the AHRC, pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 and CPN7, para 3(c), the Statement of Claim in Action No. 2003 12659 is struck out as an abuse of the Court. [ 9 ] When an action 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 . However, this Court also recognizes that good faith, positive litigation conduct should be acknowledged and encouraged: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 742-746 .

Accordingly, notwithstanding that costs normally are awarded against a plaintiff unilaterally filing a discontinuance (r 4.36(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court ), I adopt the approach taken in Weidenfeld v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 472 at para 6 (Rooke ACJ) and in Leslie v Edmonton Institution , 2020 ABQB 512 at para 4 (Henderson J), and do not make any cost order against Mr. Miller in relation to his now terminated lawsuit against the AHRC. [ 10 ] I, however, caution Mr. Miller.

This is the second time that this Court has determined that a lawsuit he filed against government actors was an abuse of the Court and its processes. Furthermore, the AHRC demonstrated, by Affidavit of Madiba Turay, that Mr. Miller had made email demands based on false pseudolaw concepts. Mr. Miller affiliated himself with notorious Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ) guru Edward Jay Robin Belanger. Mr. Miller has self- identified using language characteristic of Mr.Belanger’s fake religious organization, the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International.

Any attempt to implement OPCA schemes is an abuse of the Court, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 180 , 670-671. I recommend Mr. Miller review the many instances where Canadian courts have rejected Mr. Belanger and his concepts, e.g. R v Berg , 2019 ABQB 541 ; Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 652 , court access restrictions imposed 2018 ABQB 834 . [ 11 ] Repeated abusive litigation may result in serious negative litigation consequences for Mr. Miller. Attempts to employ OPCA concepts will aggravate any negative outcome. I very strongly recommend Mr.

Miller obtain legal advice prior to initiating future court actions. There are a variety of organizations in Edmonton that offer free legal advice and/or information, for example, Edmonton Community Legal Centre and Student Legal Services of Edmonton.

[ 12 ] Counsel for the Defendant shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Miller’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 28 th day of October, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Glenn D. Miller Self-represented Litigant Scott Matheson Field Law for the Alberta Human Rights Commission