Saldiran v Saldiran, 2021 ABQB 894

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Saldiran v Saldiran, 2021 ABQB 894 Date: 20211010 Docket: 4803 190510 Registry: Edmonton Between: Funda Saldiran Plaintiff - and - Mustafa Saldiran Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice M. Hayes-Richards _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On March 20, 2020, Funda Saldiran [Ms. Saldiran] filed for a divorce from Mustafa Saldiran [Mr. Saldiran]. Since then there have been numerous steps in this proceeding, including many court hearings. While Ms.

Saldiran has in the past been represented by counsel, she is currently a self-represented litigant [SRL]. Mr. Saldiran is represented. [ 2 ] I am scheduled to conduct a Case Conference with Ms. Saldiran and Mr. Saldiran on November 23, 2021. That Case

Conference was set on October 29, 2021. A trial of this matter is set for five days, from March 28 to April 1, 2022. [3] Unfortunately, Ms. Saldiran has engaged in an escalating pattern of irregular and abusive communications and Courtactivities over the last several months. That has included misuse and abuse of the Clerks of this Court. Ms. Saldiran’s actions now requireintervention to regulate her activities. II.

Regulation of Court Processes, Access to Court Facilities,and Communications with the Court [4] This Court has a broad inherent jurisdiction to control its functions, and prevent abuse of its processes: BCGEU v BritishColumbia (Attorney General), (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 214 at para 49, 53 DLR (4th) 241; I H Jacob, “The InherentJurisdiction of the Court” (1970) 23:1 Current Legal Problems 23 at 40-41. That authority extends outside the courtrooms to protectcourt staff and buildings. [5] The Clerks of the Court are particularly vulnerable to abusive litigants.

Pepall JA in Lochner v Ontario Civilian PoliceCommission, 2020 ONCA 720 at para 18 stressed this fact: Vexatious litigants are a drain on our system of justice. In addition to being a burden on the opposing parties, they are a burden on thejudiciary and court personnel.

At least the judiciary has mechanisms to attempt to address the conduct of vexatious litigants, but courtpersonnel are ill-equipped to do anything when faced with a barrage of telephone calls, emails, and other communications frequentlycharacterized by incendiary and rude remarks. ... [Emphasis added.] [6] Similarly, Justice Shelley of this Court in Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok, 2019 ABQB 196 at para 10 concluded: The Court Clerks serve a critical function as part of the administration of justice in this province. They are the front line of the AlbertaCourt of Queen’s Bench.

They are required to assist litigants and others who have business with the Court. However, the obligation toprovide these services to the public does not extend to them being bullied, abused, or otherwise mistreated in an unfair andunprofessional manner. [7] This Court has previously ordered abusive litigants only communicate with the Clerks and other court staff via specificmethods: e.g. Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 690; McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok.

Furthermore,Canadian courts have prohibited personal attendance and interaction with the Clerks and Registries where an abusive litigant has actedinappropriately: e.g.

Prefontaine v Canada, 2004 FCA 52; Prefontaine v Canada, 2004 TCC 775; Botar v Braden Equities Inc (7February 2018), Edmonton 1603-11591 (Alta QB): McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok; JSG (Re),2021 ABQB 555. [8] Recently, the Alberta Court of Appeal has confirmed that Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 10.49(1) monetarypenalties are an appropriate response to litigants who do not follow court instructions and operate in compliance of the Alberta Rules ofCourt: Hok v Alberta (Court of Queen’s Bench), 2021 ABCA 321. III. Ms. Saldiran’s Problematic Recent Activities [9] Ms.

Saldiran is currently engaged in problematic and escalating litigation-related misconduct. In October and November,2021, repeated letter and email correspondence from Ms. Saldiran has been received by Justices of this Court, Clerks of the Court,judicial assistants, and the Edmonton Court Executive Counsel, that include allegations of judicial misconduct, fraud, and that Ms.Saldiran is lied to and mistreated by court staff. Ms. Saldiran also rejects decisions and steps taken by this Court on a variety of bases.Ms. Saldiran broadly disputes facts relating to her marriage, Mr.

Saldiran, and the Court’s proceedings. [10] Ms. Saldiran’s allegations concerning the Clerks include: 1. she has been “... humiliated by the front desk clerks many times ...”; 2. the Clerks have wrongfully refused to file materials; 3. that someone in the Clerks’ office is working for Mr. Saldiran’s lawyer, and “... doing document fraud and disappearing mydocuments. ...”; 4. the Clerks refused to provide their names, which is “rudeness”, and illegally impedes Ms.

Saldiran making complaints to lawenforcement about Court staff; and 5. “... your clerks hinder my civil right to seek justice and to speak about the truth ...”. [11] Ms. Saldiran has engaged in disruptive and inappropriate behaviour in the Edmonton Courthouse. That has led to Ms. Saldiranbeing physically removed by the Sheriffs. For example, on November 5, 2021, Ms. Saldiran appeared at the Edmonton Alberta Court ofQueen’s Bench counter. She attempted to file an application, despite instructions to the contrary. Ms. Saldiran was disruptive anduncooperative. Ms.

Saldiran, against court instructions, photographed the Clerks of the Court, and was removed from the Court by theSheriffs. Ms. Saldiran in a November 5, 2021 email to myself acknowledged she took pictures of Court staff, and demanded staff names:“... it is my right ...”, so that she can complain to police. Ms. Saldiran self-reports that she has attempted to have the Sheriffs assist her intaking steps that target the Clerks. Those demands were refused.

[ 12 ] The Clerk of the Court reports that Ms. Saldiran has telephoned to make many complaints, including that the Clerks were stealing her documents, that a Clerk had disguised herself by changing her hair colour, and that Ms. Saldiran blames her ex-husband for recent car accidents, that were intended to harm Ms. Saldiran. Ms. Saldiran has requested the Clerks conduct multiple searches with a total cost of $361, but then not paid for those activities. [ 13 ] Ms. Saldiran advances many allegations against lawyers involved in this divorce action.

She reports making complaints to the Law Society of Alberta, including against her former lawyers, alleging fraud. Ms. Saldiran is also often critical of opposing counsel, who alleged is a “terrible person” who prepares affidavits that are lies. She says the Law Society of Alberta is protecting Mr. Saldiran’s lawyer, despite that lawyer’s bad conduct. [ 14 ] Ms. Saldiran also alleges that there are errors in a questioning transcript. She calls that fraud. Ms. Saldiran claims the transcript preparation company “... is hiding my audio recording from my own questioning ...”.

In an October 15, 2021 letter to Chief Justice Moreau and Associate Chief Justice Nielsen, Ms. Saldiran claims that one of Mr. Saldiran’s lawyers: ... bribed the A.C.E. Recording company ... to disappear my statements about my husband previous assaults, and domestic violence. ...” (sic). [ 15 ] Ms. Saldiran has been repeatedly cautioned concerning her excessive and improper communications. She was warned on October 20, 2021 that she should not attempt to contact Chief Justice Moreau, but instead direct communications about her divorce to the judges specifically involved in that litigation.

That instruction was ignored. I, via my judicial assistant, instructed Ms. Saldiran “... that you are not to send any more emails and letters ...” prior to the November 23, 2021 Case Conference. Ms. Salderin has repeatedly disregarded that instruction, sending my office emails several times in the last week. In her latest November 8, 2021 email, Ms. Saldiran complains about allegedly inaccurate documents, outstanding disclosure and incomplete records. [ 16 ] Further, Ms.

Saldiran, by letter (October 26, 2021) and email, demanded Chief Justice Moreau assign a different justice to conduct the November 23, 2021 Case Conference. After being cautioned yet again not to contact Chief Justice Moreau, Ms. Saldiran again emailed complaints to Chief Justice Moreau that globally alleged judicial bias in favour of lawyers who filed forged documents. [ 17 ] Ms.

Saldiran’s recent court activities include well-recognized indicia of abusive litigation that warrant judicial intervention, including: 1. attempted judge shopping ( Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 677-678 [ Unrau #2 ]); 2. escalating and expanding allegations of wrongdoing ( Unrau #2 at paras 633-645 ), 3. failure to abide by court instructions ( Unrau #2 at paras 706-710 ), and 4. broad complaints of misconduct and conspiracy by justice system participants ( Chutskoff v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 ; Unrau #2 at para 714 ). [ 18 ] This escalation requires immediate Court intervention.

Therefore, in light of Ms. Saldiran’s developing and expanding pattern of problematic litigation, and her disruptive conduct and excessive and inappropriate communications, I order: 1. Ms. Saldiran is to only communicate with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in relation to any matter before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or a leave application by:

a) email, mail, or courier; or

b) a person authorized under the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 to act as a representative in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. 2. In addition to the restrictions in #1 above, any email communications by Ms. Saldiran to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench must be sent only to “James.Stroeder@gov.ab.ca”, with the two exceptions identified below in #5(b)(i-ii). 3. For clarity, in respect of #1 above, Ms. Saldiran is prohibited from:

a) personally appearing at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Counters; and

b) telephone communications with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Clerks, judicial assistants, trial coordinators, or other Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench staff; without an Order of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, or myself, or judicial designates which permits that contact. 4. The Clerks of the Court are authorized to, under their sole discretion, refuse and reject any Court filing, activity, or step by Ms. Saldiran in Action No. 4803 190510 that requires any payment of funds, unless Ms. Saldiran pays all fees associated with that activity, and any outstanding unpaid fees. 5.

Until the Action No. 4803 190510 November 23, 2021 Case Conference is complete, Ms. Saldiran is prohibited from:

a) any communication with any Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, except for myself, and

b) any communication to myself, or document filed in the Action No. 4803 190510 except for: (

i) On November 18 th , which is five days before the next Case Conference, Ms. Saldiran can send one update letter to my assistant that is no longer than five pages. The update letter will comply with the requirements set out at paragraph 29 (a-

d) of Practice Note 2 (a copy

of which can be found on the Alberta Courts website); and (ii) On November 18 th , Ms. Saldiran is to send to the court ( CommunicationsOfficer.qb@albertacourts.ca ) and to my assistant her signed undertaking not to record court proceedings. If Ms. Saldiran plans to have a friend attend the Case Conference with her, then she will also provide a signed undertaking for her friend. [ 19 ] Ms.

Saldiran will also be permitted to appear at the Edmonton Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Civil Litigation Counter to view the Action No. 4803 190510 court file at a date and time set by James Stroeder, after email communication with Ms. Saldiran. Ms. Saldiran will be permitted to view the file for no longer than one and a half hours. IV. Conclusion [ 20 ] Ms. Saldiran’s excessive, abusive, repeated, and uncontrollable misconduct in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has required direct intervention to structure her litigation and communications activities. [ 21 ] I caution Ms.

Saldiran that if she continues her current pattern of abusive litigation conduct that she faces possible additional negative consequences that include: 1. her being subject to court access restrictions that prohibit her from filing applications in the Docket 4803 190510 action, 2. penalties pursuant to Rule 10.49(1), 3. elevated costs awards, and 4. that her litigation may be dismissed because of her abusive conduct. [ 22 ] Mindful of my obligations to self-represented litigants such as Ms. Saldiran, as endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , I note to Ms.

Saldiran that if she disagrees with this Decision, then she should take that complaint to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 23 ] I strongly encourage Ms. Saldiran to seek legal advice and assistance prior to initiating any future litigation steps. There are a variety of organizations in Edmonton that offer free legal advice and/or information, for example, Edmonton Community Legal Centre (ECLC) and Student Legal Services of Edmonton.

I have also previously provided her with the link to the Canadian Judicial Council’s handbook for self-represented litigants. [ 24 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Saldiran’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Ms. Saldiran may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to: funsaldiran@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 10 th day of November, 2021. M. Hayes-Richards J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None