Scheuchner v Neufeld, 2021 ABQB 863

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Scheuchner v Neufeld, 2021 ABQB 863 Date: 20211101 Docket: 2101 03302 Registry: Calgary Between: Todd Scheuchner Applicant - and - Mark Neufeld (Calgary Police Chief), Brenda Lucki (Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner), and Kaycee Madu (Minister of Justice) Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On March 10, 2021, Todd Scheuchner [Mr.

Scheuchner], filed a 54-page “Originating Application”, along with a 220-page Affidavit of Mr. Scheuchner, that named the three Respondents as reproduced in the style of cause, above. In brief, Mr. Scheuchner alleged that police agencies are clandestinely attacking and torturing Mr. Scheuchner with energy weapons. Mr. Scheuchner reports he is experiencing many negative consequences, including cancer and his bones being eroded and hollowed out. Mr. Scheuchner’s application sought that the Court order the named Respondents compel police agencies to cease that activity.

[ 2 ] On April 13, 2021, Counsel for the Hon. Kaycee Madu, Minister of Justice and Solicitor-General [the Minister], by letter, referred Mr. Scheuchner’s Application to the Court as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7], paragraph 6. Subsequently, on April 15, 2021, Counsel for Chief Neufeld wrote a letter to the Court in support of the Minister’s CNP7 referral. In a decision reported as Scheuchner v Neufeld , 2021 ABQB 296 [ Scheuchner #1 ] , I concluded that Mr.

Scheuchner’s Application appeared to be an abuse of the Court on multiple bases. Mr. Scheuchner was given 14 days to submit an up to ten-page Written Submissions in response to the prima facie defects identified in Scheuchner #1 . [ 3 ] No response was received from Mr. Scheuchner, and, pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68, Mr. Scheuchner’s Application was struck out: Scheuchner v Neufeld , 2021 ABQB 358 [ Scheuchner #2 ]. Mr. Scheuchner was ordered to pay the Minister and Chief Neufeld $500 in costs, each. [ 4 ] That should have ended Mr. Scheuchner’s Application. Unfortunately, that was not the case. On September 10, 2021, Mr. Scheuchner filed a “Writ of Mandamus (EX-PARTE-ORDER)”, and a 306-page Affidavit of Mr. Scheuchner sworn on the same date. That appears to have led to a court appearance on October 1, 2021 before Justice Romaine. None of this should have happened.

Mr. Scheuchner’s Docket 2101 03302 Application, and, indeed, his whole proceedings in this Court were by that point already absolutely terminated as of May 5, 2021, as a consequence of Scheuchner #2 . [ 5 ] I note this was not an error on the part of the Clerks. The Clerks have no authority to test the substance of court filings, but only that documentary formalities are met and filing fees are paid: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 789 ; R v Verma , 2016 BCCA 307 at para 20 . The issue here is that Mr.

Scheuchner refused to acknowledge he was attempting to continue a dead action, contrary to the Court’s decisions. [ 6 ] On October 18, 2021, my office received further correspondence from Mr. Scheuchner, an undated document titled “Letter and Memorandum of Decision full”. That included: 1. an undated one-page letter addressed to me from Mr. Scheuchner, 2. a copy of Scheuchner #2 , and 3. an unfiled document titled “ WRIT OF MANDAMUS (EX-PARTE-ORDER)” [emphasis in original] that is different from the September 10, 2021 document of the same name, though the contents of these two items are related and similar.

The unfiled “Writ” advances the same kinds of allegations and evidence of energy-device based attacks and harm upon Mr. Scheuchner that were addressed and rejected in Scheuchner #1 and Scheuchner #2 . [ 7 ] Mr. Scheuchner, in his undated letter, states he was unaware of Scheuchner #1 and Scheuchner #2 , which he attributes to his mail being misplaced while he was residing in a Salvation Army facility. Mr. Scheuchner continues to explain he was absent from the October 1, 2021 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench appearance because he had been arrested and was in custody. Mr.

Scheuchner states that police harassment and torture by energy devices is continuing, and that he is “... waiting to die of cancer ...”. Mr. Scheuchner concludes: “... Respectfully your honor I’d asking permission to file my documents including the knew evidence and simply present my case to the courts. ...” [sic]. Mr. Scheuchner states he will serve the Respondents by email. [ 8 ] Mr. Scheuchner’s request to file materials in the Docket No. 2101 03302 matter is denied for two reasons: 1. His action is terminated. Mr. Scheuchner’s Application ended on May 6, 2021.

This Court no longer has jurisdiction to continue this matter. It is functus . 2. Even if I were to conclude that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench retains jurisdiction to evaluate Mr. Scheuchner’s claims, I would reject them. As is explained in Scheuchner #1 at paras 13-15 , what Mr. Scheuchner makes are “extraordinary claims”, and, adopting the language of Manderscheid J in VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 52 , leave refused 2014 ABCA 121 , “[a]n extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” [ 9 ] If Mr. Scheuchner has a remedy in this matter, that is with the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 obligations on Canadian judges to provide information on litigation alternatives to SRLs, I direct him to take his concerns about the Docket No. 2101 03302 matter to that forum, if he seeks to continue his claims against the Respondents. [ 10 ] Since Mr. Scheuchner has not followed the Alberta Rules of Court and common law concerning civil proceedings, I order that the Clerks of the Court refuse to accept any further filings or other documents from Mr. Scheuchner in Docket No. 2101 03302. The Clerks are authorized to, at their discretion, not respond to Mr.

Scheuchner in the future regarding Docket No. 2101 03302. A copy of the Order accompanying this decision will be served by the Court on the Clerks, pursuant to Rule 13.45. [ 11 ] The Court will prepare and serve the court Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Scheuchner’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the corresponding Order will be served on Mr. Scheuchner via the email indicated in his correspondence: 19trace74@gmail.com. [ 12 ] I very strongly recommend that Mr. Scheuchner obtain professional legal advice in relation to any future court activities.

His expanding pattern of persistent, abusive litigation risks serious future costs, court-imposed penalties, and court access restriction consequences. Mr. Scheuchner 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. Scheuchner 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 1st day of November, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Todd Scheuchner Self-Represented Litigant