Feeney v TD General Insurance Company, 2021 ABQB 947

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Feeney v TD General Insurance Company, 2021 ABQB 947 Date: 20211129 Docket: 2101 02349 Registry: Calgary Between: Keenan A. Feeney Respondent / Plaintiff - and - TD General Insurance Company, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, and Security National Insurance Company Applicants / Defendants - and - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Mike ter Kuile Applicants, Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the

Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On July 26, 2021, Counsel for TD General Insurance Company, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, and Security National Insurance Company [the TD Defendants], by letter to myself and Chief Justice Moreau, requested that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Feeney v TD General Insurance Company Docket 2101 02349 lawsuit, be placed into Case Management, and that a Case Management Justice be assigned to that matter.

That request was denied in a Decision reported as Feeney v TD General Insurance Company , 2021 ABQB 604 [ Feeney v TD #1 ]. In brief, the Court concluded that Mr. Feeney’s litigation record demonstrated that Mr. Feeney could not be effectively managed by Case Management, so there was no benefit to placing the action under Case Management. [ 2 ] The Court, instead, invited the TD Defendants to initiate a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1 application that would impose court access gatekeeping on Mr. Feeney: Feeney v TD #1 at para 14 .

The Court, at that point, imposed interim court access gatekeeping, so that Mr. Feeney was/is required to obtain permission - “leave” - prior to initiating or continuing litigation in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench: Feeney v TD #1 at paras 7-9, 15 . [ 3 ] On August 20, 2021, I received two Applications that Mr. Feeney be subject to court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1, from: 1. the TD Defendants; and 2. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta [Alberta] and Mike ter Kuile [Mr. ter Kuile].

Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile were the successful Applicants in Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta , 2021 ABCA 255 [ Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 ], where the Alberta Court of Appeal imposed Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access gatekeeping on Mr. Feeney’s activities in that Court. [ 4 ] Alberta participates in this matter as of right: Judicature Act s 23.1(2).

I concluded, in a Decision reported as Feeney v TD General Insurance Company , 2021 ABQB 671 [ Feeney v TD #2 ], that Mr. ter Kuile is a proper co-applicant via Judicature Act s 23.1(2), given Mr. ter Kuile’s participation in the Alberta Court of Appeal Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process, and Justice Khullar’s findings and decision in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 . [ 5 ] The Applicants sought court access restrictions that prohibit Mr.

Feeney from initiating or continuing litigation in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and that these Applications proceed on the basis of written materials only. [ 6 ] The Applicants and Mr. Feeney were instructed to provide submissions, and affidavit evidence, in relation to two questions: 1. should Mr.

Feeney be subject to court access restriction gatekeeping as a “vexatious litigant”, pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23- 23.1, and 2. if so, what should be the scope of those court access restrictions? [ Feeney v TD #2 at para 6 .] [ 7 ] A timeline for a document-based Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process was also set: 1. the Applicants had until September 10, 2021 to file and serve written argument and supporting affidavit evidence, 2. Mr.

Feeney had until September 24, 2021 to file and serve written argument and supporting affidavit evidence, and 3. the Applicants may file rebuttal argument, due October 1, 2021. [ Feeney v TD #2 at para 7 .] [ 8 ] This process has now been completed. The Court, therefore, now proceeds to evaluate whether Mr. Feeney should be subject to court access gatekeeping, and, if so, what form that gatekeeping should take. II. Submissions A. TD Defendants [ 9 ] The TD Defendants identify three general bases for why Mr. Feeney should be subject to prospective litigation gatekeeping via a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 order.

First, the TD Defendants observe problematic conduct by Mr. Feeney in the Docket 2101 02349 Action where Mr. Feeney has sued the TD Defendants. The TD Defendants identify unusual language and inflammatory claims in Mr. Feeney’s materials, such as the Statement of Claim, and Amended Statement of Claim, which allege the Defendants engaged in

“incomprehensible negligence”, and “incomprehensible Bad Faith and misconduct, at all levels.” In a “Reply to Defence”, Mr. Feeney made dramatic and bald allegations of “... grossly inexcusable actions ... the abusive and dictator like nature, [the TD Defendants] and their actors, continually display.” [ 10 ] The TD Defendants also observe that Mr.

Feeney is continuing a pattern of unsuccessful and abusive litigation steps that Alberta Courts have identified in earlier litigation, unsuccessfully attempting to strike out the TD Defendants’ Statement of Defence, rejecting a draft Order, and not complying with the Court’s instructions. When that failed, Mr. Feeney applied to vary the Order, alleging the judge who had issued that Order was grossly negligent. [ 11 ] The TD Defendants say this misconduct is only the most recent instance of Mr.

Feeney’s pattern of persistent abusive litigation, pointing to prior determinations of Alberta Courts, such as the Alberta Court of Appeal’s evaluation of Mr. Feeney’s litigation activities (e.g. Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 ), and earlier decisions of this Court, where, for example, I concluded that attempts to case manage Mr. Feeney had no prospect for success (e.g. Feeney v TD #1 ). [ 12 ] Last, the TD Defendants submit that the fact Mr. Feeney was made subject to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access restrictions in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 is a strong basis on which to conclude Mr.

Feeney should be subject to parallel steps at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, particularly since Justice Khullar in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 concluded Mr. Feeney’s conduct in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench also exhibited misconduct that potentially warrants court intervention, including litigation misconduct identified in Judicature Act s 23(2). B. Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile [ 13 ] Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile submitted a joint Brief that argues Mr. Feeney should be made subject to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access restrictions.

Many of the points argued by Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile parallel those of the TD Defendants, and identify the same relevant law and principles. [ 14 ] These Applicants surveyed Mr. Feeney’s litigation record, highlighting many instances of litigation misconduct by Mr. Feeney. Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile note that Mr. Feeney has engaged in duplicative litigation and re-litigation on the same subjects in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court of Canada. In every Court, Mr.

Feeney’s lawsuits and applications are consistently rejected and dismissed. [ 15 ] Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile argue the same abusive litigation conduct patterns by Mr. Feeney repeat in all three forums, and Courts have found exactly that. These Applicants call Mr. Feeney’s conduct “reprehensible”, and observe how Mr. Feeney consistently responds to litigation failure by denying court legitimacy and jurisdiction, and advancing claims against those who oppose him are parts of a larger, alleged, anti-Feeney conspiracy, biased, or even criminal. Mr. Feeney never accepts negative outcomes.

Someone else is always to blame. [ 16 ] Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile argue Mr. Feeney exhibits an expanding pattern of abusive dispute-related activities, that includes judge shopping, forum shopping, attempts to circumvent court processes, attacks on court officers, and the Alberta Law Society and Canadian Judicial Council complaints. There is therefore no apparent limit to who Mr. Feeney may attack next via his abusive court activities. Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile conclude: Mr.

Feeney has made clear that he will not cease his ill-informed litigation crusade against HMQ, CPS, and Mr. ter Kuile, and will not accept decisions that are not in his favour; he denies the jurisdiction underlying those decisions. Mr. Feeney’s continued litigation misconduct degrades public access to justice, and should be denounced and prevented. Mr. Feeney continues to abuse the justice system at the expense of others. Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile argue that makes global court access gatekeeping for Mr. Feeney in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench an appropriate and necessary step. I agree. C. Mr.

Feeney [ 17 ] Mr. Feeney filed a five-page “Affidavit in Response”, though this document is likely better described as a composite of written argument and alleged facts. The “Affidavit” attaches no exhibits. Prior to reviewing the substance of Mr. Feeney’s argument, I will immediately dispose of certain claims by Mr. Feeney as a preliminary step, rather than address those in the analysis below. 1. Alberta’s and Mr. ter Kuile’s Disputed Standing [ 18 ] First, Mr. Feeney rejects any role in this Application by Alberta, the Calgary Police Service (CPS), and Mr. ter Kuile.

I note, for clarification, that the CPS is not a party in the present Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application, though it was a participant in other earlier litigation by Mr. Feeney in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 19 ] Mr. Feeney says Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile are “non-parties”, and should not be permitted any role according to the Rules of Court . He also calls their participation in this matter “a prospective collateral attack to use in appeals next year. ...”.

This claim is peculiar since any finding of this Court cannot bind the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the Alberta Court of Appeal has already ruled Mr. Feeney is a “vexatious litigant” in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 . [ 20 ] I note Mr. Feeney’s “Affidavit” does not respond to Judicature Act s 23.1(2), that specifically authorizes Alberta and non- litigants to participate in Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 processes. In Feeney v TD #2 at para 4 , I evaluated the basis of Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile’s participation. I reject Mr.

Feeney’s complaint and find that Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile are, in law, valid participants in the current Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process. If Mr. Feeney disagreed with my conclusion in the Feeney v TD #2 judgment, then Mr. Feeney should have instead taken that issue to the Alberta Court of Appeal. As far as I am aware, no appeal of Feeney v TD #2 has been filed.

2. Unknown Federal Court Lawsuit [ 21 ] Paragraph two of the “Affidavit” appears to say I should disqualify myself from hearing this Application because Mr. Feeney has sued me in Federal Court: The second and more obvious issue at hand would be the blatant conflict of Interest with Mr. Rooke hearing these matters. Mr. John Rooke has been formally sued in the Federal Court of Canada for his past actions against Mr. Feeney.

He may feel he holds some cloak of immunity while facilitating his position as an Officer of the Court but its very clear that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Immunity is NOT absolute. That matter is currently awaiting a hearing to review the readiness to proceed to trial; as Mr. Rooke's defence council has put forth NO legitimate defence and chose not to file any records in support of a defence of any kind. [Emphasis in original, sic.] [ 22 ] I am unaware of any lawsuit or other litigation in the Federal Court where Mr. Feeney has named me as a party. Mr.

Feeney’s “Affidavit” at one point mentions a Federal Court docket: T-854-21. The parties to that lawsuit are Mr. Feeney and Canada. Mr. Feeney did not attach any filing from the unidentified purported lawsuit where Mr. Feeney has sued me. A search of the Federal Courts’ docket records discloses multiple and now terminated lawsuits where I was named as a Defendant by a number of OPCA litigants. However, none of these lawsuits involves Mr. Feeney as a party. I have no “defence council” (or counsel) representing me in any active Federal Court proceedings involving Mr. Feeney.

I, therefore, have no explanation for Mr. Feeney saying he has sued me in Federal Court, other than the supposition that Mr. Feeney has fabricated this claim. That is the first basis on which I dispose of Mr. Feeney’s allegation of conflict of interest due to something happening at the Federal Court of Canada. [ 23 ] Second, even if Mr. Feeney had sued me on some basis, that is not, in itself, a reason why I must recuse myself from this litigation.

The law is clear that a complaint against a judge is not a basis to trigger recusal: Taha v Williams , 2019 PECA 11 at paras 22- 23 ; Ayers v Miller , 2019 SKCA 2 at paras 34-35 . As Côté JA instructed in Boardwalk Reit LLP v Edmonton (City) , 2008 ABCA 176 at para 72 : a litigant may not “... engineer perceived conflicts ...” by taking steps, making allegations, or advancing complaints. 3. Prohibition Application [ 24 ] Mr. Feeney continues that he will apply to prohibit me “... from being involved, directly and/or indirectly, with any of Mr. Feeney’s matters in any Court within Canada. ...”.

I note this proposed step is in conflict with Mr. Feeney’s claim that he is already suing me, personally, in Federal Court. How could I be ordered to not be “involved, directly and/or indirectly”, when I am purportedly - personally - a party sued by Mr. Feeney in Federal Court? Mr. Feeney appears to be proposing - based on his own “Affidavit’s” contents - a ruling that I have no right to defend myself in a court proceeding. That seems strange, and will not be successful before me. [ 25 ] Mr.

Feeney continues to say he has information from “... personal and trust worthy sources ...” [sic] that relates to my conduct, but that Mr. Feeney “... will refrain from said here say information. ...” [sic]. Mr. Feeney rejects my conclusion in Simon v Feeney , 2020 ABQB 641 at paras 5-33 [ Feeney v Simon #1 ] that no well-informed person would have a reasonable apprehension of bias in relation to my conducting proceedings that involve Mr. Feeney. He is entitled to his invalid opinion. [ 26 ] I conclude no steps or analysis are required in response to Mr. Feeney’s proposed “prohibition” application. Mr.

Feeney did not attempt to made any such filing with the Court. If Mr. Feeney wanted to do so, he would first need to seek leave of the Court for engage any such process. [ 27 ] I also note that Mr. Feeney has explicitly refused to provide the alleged factual basis for his claims, other than this involves “... unethical and immoral dealings by Mr. Rooke and aboriginal and Inuit persons ...”. When Mr. Feeney previously demanded I recuse myself, in Feeney v Simon #1 , I responded with a detailed analysis that rejected Mr. Feeney’s claims. Mr.

Feeney has not provided any new specific indication of why I am biased, other than bald allegations, such as “... Mr. Rooke has already predetermined the outcome unilaterally.” I, therefore, reject Mr. Feeney’s claims on this point. A reasonable, informed person would still have no reasonable apprehension of bias on my

part in responding to Mr. Feeney’s litigation. 4. Arguments Relating to Court Access Restrictions [ 28 ] Some of Mr. Feeney’s “Affidavit” does directly respond to the issues identified in Feeney v TD #2 at para 6 . First, Mr. Feeney attempts to reject that he has engaged in any inappropriate court activities. Mr. Feeney says that all his litigation is valid and correct. Mr. Feeney argues the Feeney v TD General Insurance Company Docket 2101 02349 Action should proceed without restriction. As is obvious, I disagree with all of these claims. [ 29 ] Mr.

Feeney also states that unfavourable court conclusions in litigation that involves Alberta and Mr. ter Kuile should be disregarded while Mr. Feeney is conducting appeals and litigation in the Federal Court. As a general point, Mr. Feeney argues no court findings of fact and/or law bind him while reviews or appeals of those decisions are underway. That argument has no merit – a Court decision is binding unless and until overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction. [ 30 ] Mr. Feeney also concludes that he has not engaged in any misconduct that is an abuse of court. Mr.

Feeney says that if he has made mistakes, he only made them once. He argues that nothing negative should result from that. Mr. Feeney argues that he is a self- represented litigant, which gives him special status and rights. Mr. Feeney denies he has re-litigated issues, engaged in futile litigation, or made unsuccessful appeals. Instead, Mr. Feeney says his actions “... are based on merit and principle ...”. Mr. Feeney rejects that he has ever engaged in inappropriate courtroom behaviour, but also explains he suffers from “a personality disorder”. I reject all of these submissions. [ 31 ] Mr.

Feeney further observes that the Applicants in this Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process have not filed affidavits in support of their arguments. He says there is, therefore, no evidence at all that Mr. Feeney should be subject to court access gatekeeping, just:

... unsubstantiated allegations with inference to past judgements made by ACJ Rooke. This is no Evidence its just suggestive jargon that deserved to be cross examined ... [Sic.] III. Analysis [ 32 ] I globally adopt the arguments and conclusions of the TD Defendants, Alberta, and Mr. ter Kuile. Court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 is appropriate for any future or ongoing litigation by Mr. Feeney at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr. Feeney is a persistent, relentless, litigant who abuses courts and opposing parties.

He operates in multiple jurisdictions, and “forum shops” his abusive litigation. Khullar JA in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 at para 36 said: ... there is no expectation that Mr Feeney will voluntarily change his litigation behaviour in this Court. There is no indication he recognizes there is anything wrong with it. ... [ 33 ] I agree with this conclusion, which applies equally to Mr. Feeney’s activities at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Therefore, the only remaining step to manage Mr. Feeney is via imposing gatekeeping steps on his access to this Court. A.

Threshold for Imposing Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Court Access Gatekeeping [ 34 ] The relevant law in this matter is not disputed by the parties. Slatter JA in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 [ Lymer ] ruled that the authority of this Court to impose prospective court access gatekeeping is almost entirely restricted to that provided by Judicature Act ss 23-23.1, with only a remnant residual inherent jurisdiction authority for this Court to protect its processes from abusive litigants.

Briefly, Slatter JA concluded that only a history of repeated persistent litigation misconduct may warrant prospective court access gatekeeping. Any such step is only appropriate where all other litigation management steps have failed. A Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 order is a “last ditch” attempt to control abusive litigants. B. Mr.

Feeney’s Litigation Record [ 35 ] The Alberta Court of Appeal in Lymer ruled that Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access restrictions are based on a litigation record that exhibits persistent repeated bad conduct, including litigation misconduct and abusive activities identified in Judicature Act s 23(2). This Court has also developed “indicia” categories of abusive litigation that potentially warrant court response to manage abusive litigation and litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 [ Unrau #2 ]. Canadian courts have already found, as fact and law, that Mr.

Feeney persistently and repeatedly engages in many of these abusive activities. [ 36 ] In one unique sense, Mr. Feeney is correct in his “Affidavit”. The Applicants have not introduced affidavit evidence in support of their Applications. The Applicants have, instead, referenced findings of this and other courts. While Mr. Feeney obviously does not agree with what this Court and other courts have ruled, that is irrelevant to the analysis that follows. I note, in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 , that that Court relied on findings in now finalized court disputes that were no longer under appeal: para 6. Mr.

Feeney cannot now dispute those conclusions as questions of fact and law, though he obviously does not agree with them. This Court is bound in law by Khullar JA’s conclusions in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 about Mr. Feeney’s record of repeated, persistent abusive conduct, and that Mr. Feeney could not be managed by steps other than a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access gatekeeping order. [ 37 ] In the interests of judicial economy, I will not conduct a comprehensive review of Mr. Feeney’s litigation.

First, Khullar JA, in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 , already conducted a detailed review of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal decisions prior to her decision. Justice Khullar identified multiple indicia of persistent, repeated abusive litigation. Second, I accept the Applicants’ summaries of Mr. Feeney’s court activities as documented in their Application materials. [ 38 ] Justice Khullar also, at Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 para 34, concluded that Mr. Feeney’s litigation conduct in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was persistent re-litigation of settled issues.

Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 at para 33 continues to describe how Mr. Feeney engaged in inappropriate and threatening communications with the Alberta Court of Appeal and its Case Management Officer. That, ultimately, led the Alberta Court of Appeal to impose a “... communications protocol with Mr Feeney to restrict the abuse and harassment of Court staff.” As I previously observed, those conclusions are binding on this Court, no matter what Mr. Feeney may say. [ 39 ] Subsequent to Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 , Mr. Feeney has also engaged in further abusive litigation in the Alberta Court of Appeal.

In Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta , 2021 ABCA 261 [ Feeney v Alberta ABCA #4 ], Strekaf JA indicates Mr. Feeney has attempted to re-litigate earlier applications that had been dismissed: Feeney v Alberta ABCA #4 at para 2. Mr. Feeney also attempted to add parties to litigation, even after Mr. Feeney had earlier agreed that one identified party had nothing to do with the appeal in question: Feeney v Alberta ABCA #4 at para 2. Mr.

Feeney also sought a case conference, where that provided no benefit or function: Feeney v Alberta ABCA #4 at para 6. [ 40 ] In Feeney v Simon , 2021 ABQB 169 at para 13 [ Feeney v Simon #3 ], I concluded that Mr. Feeney will: ... never take “No” for an answer and ... continue to try to re-litigate matters over and over again, notwithstanding that the same issue has been previously decided against him. ... Despite Mr.

Feeney now being subject to court access restrictions at the Alberta Court of Appeal, Feeney v Alberta ABCA #4 demonstrates his conduct since illustrates he continues that pattern, unabated. [ 41 ] As was noted by the Applicants, Mr. Feeney is active in the Federal Court. Several lawsuits are relevant to this Application. In Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen , Docket T-272-20, Prothonotary Ring, on September 11, 2020, struck out claims against Alberta. Mr. Feeney had sought $5 million in damages based on Alberta litigation reviewed in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 . Prothonotary Ring

concluded that “... the Statement of Claim is obviously bereft of any chance of success ...” and it is “... plain and obvious ...” the Court had no jurisdiction to hear Mr. Feeney’s lawsuit, and awarded $750 in costs against Mr. Feeney. [ 42 ] Mr. Feeney then filed a lawsuit, on May 26, 2021, against Canada, seeking $25 million in damages on the basis of alleged judicial and government official misconduct. Fothergill J in Feeney v Canada , 2021 FC 1213 struck out this lawsuit, and also imposed court access restrictions on Mr.

Feeney as a “vexatious litigant”, pursuant to Federal Courts Act , RSC 1985, c F-7 , s 40. Justice Fothergill concluded that this lawsuit made the same general allegations as the Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen , Docket T-272-20 proceeding, and that those claims were nothing but unsubstantiated abusive bald allegations, and that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear this matter. [ 43 ] At para 20, Justice Fothergill concludes Mr.

Feeney is, once again, engaged in re-litigation of settled issues, including litigation conducted in Alberta: The current proceeding is a transparent attempt to re-litigate the allegations struck in Court File No T-272-20 and previously adjudicated in Mr. Feeney’s protracted disputes before the Alberta courts. It is both vexatious and abusive. That means that the Federal Court has concluded Mr. Feeney is a “forum shopper”, an abusive litigant who re-litigates in other jurisdictions to evade failure of the original lawsuits and resulting litigation and litigant management steps: Unrau #2 at 679-682.

That is an active attempt to evade effective management of court processes, and to continue abuse directed against targeted opposing parties. [ 44 ] Justice Fothergill continues at paras 21-22 to observe that Mr. Feeney has also, at the Federal Court, engaged in “transparent” attempts to re-litigate a Federal Court reimbursement claim lawsuit, Feeney v Minister of Veterans Affairs , Docket T-19-20 (FC): Given his litigation history in Alberta and before this Court, I am satisfied that Mr. Feeney is a vexatious litigant.

He has repeatedly commenced unmeritorious actions, and he has routinely sought to re-litigate matters that have been decided previously. This finding matches the larger pattern that I and Justice Khullar have also have identified. [ 45 ] The Federal Court granted a request for $1,500 in costs, that “... represents a modest contribution towards Mr. Feeney’s wasteful consumption of judicial resources ...”. [ 46 ] I agree with the TD Defendants that Mr. Feeney has already engaged in abusive litigation steps in the Feeney v TD General Insurance Company Docket 2101 02349 lawsuit. Mr.

Feeney rejected unfavorable court findings, called the involved Justice grossly negligent, and then engaged court processes to attack the decision. That continues the pattern observed by multiple judicial and prothonotary decision makers in the Alberta and Federal Courts. [ 47 ] These findings are a very strong basis to conclude that Mr. Feeney should be subject to court access gatekeeping steps.

This Court has adopted the principle identified by Stratas JA of the Federal Court of Appeal, who in Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at para 37 concluded: ... other courts’ findings of vexatiousness under similarly-worded provisions can be imported into later applications against the same litigant and can be given much weight ... The wheel needn’t be reinvented. [Emphasis added.] See also Simon v Canada (Attorney General) , 2019 FCA 28 at para 25 . [ 48 ] This rule has been repeatedly applied by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

For example, Anderson J in Hill v Bundon , 2018 ABQB 506 , at para 79 expressed the principle in this manner: I conclude as a point of law that where a court in another jurisdiction has imposed court access restrictions on a person then that creates a presumption that analogous court access restrictions are also warranted , either on application or the court’s own motion, in Alberta, unless that presumption is rebutted by the alleged abusive litigant . [Emphasis added.] [ 49 ] Similarly, Moreau CJ in Peters v Keef , 2019 ABQB 85 , at para 17 , concluded: ...

When a court has already concluded that court access restrictions are necessary to manage a litigant, then that is, of itself, a very strong factor in support of additional court access restrictions that respond to additional anticipated litigation misconduct ... [Emphasis added.] [ 50 ] Mr. Feeney’s abusive litigation in this Court is ongoing. Furthermore, Mr. Feeney, I believe, will not stop his abusive litigation activity, unless actively restrained. Mr.

Feeney is blunt and direct in his “Affidavit” - he alleges that he has done absolutely nothing wrong, and that all fault belongs to opposing parties, and corrupt, biased, and incompetent judges. He is absolutely wrong on all these bases. I concluded in Feeney v Simon #3 at para 17 and Feeney v TD #1 at para 6 that case management of Mr. Feeney is pointless. That form of litigation management has been attempted with Mr. Feeney. Case management was a total failure. I note that Mr. Feeney appealed Feeney v Simon #3 at para 17 , but has since abandoned that appeal, so Mr.

Feeney is no longer in law contesting my conclusion in Feeney v Simon #3 on this question. [ 51 ] Given these facts, I conclude Mr. Feeney should be subject to court access gatekeeping steps that parallel those imposed by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 , and the Federal Court in Feeney v Canada , 2021 FC 1213 . [ 52 ] I, therefore, conclude that Mr. Feeney is a vexatious litigant, and should be subject to a Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 Order as follows: 1.

The “Interim Court Access Restrictions” Order filed on July 30, 2021 in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 2101 02349 is vacated immediately. 2. In its place, I order that Keenan A. Feeney is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any

appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. 3. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Keenan A. Feeney shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate: (

i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person. (ii) Any application shall be made in writing. (iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of this Order restricting Keenan A. Feeney access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Keenen A. Feeney proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Keenan A. Feeney has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and, if so, providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. (iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to: (1) the involved potential parties; (2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and (3) the Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. 4. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards. 5. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. 6. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to all affected persons, as well as any person as directed by the Court. 7. The Clerks of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Keenan A. Feeney unless: (

i) Keenan A. Feeney is a named party in the action in question, and (ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Keenan A. Feeney has been granted leave to take that step by the Court. 8. The approval of Keenan A. Feeney as to the form and content of this Order is not required per Rule 9.4(2)(c). IV. Conclusion [ 53 ] I conclude, in parallel with the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Canada decisions to the same effect, that Mr. Feeney is a “vexatious litigant”. Mr.

Feeney should therefore be subject to global court access restrictions in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, pursuant to the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 [ 54 ] The Applicants sought costs of this Application. They were entirely successful. Successful parties in a civil action are presumptively due their court costs: Rule 10.29(1). I have already commented on the relative merit of Mr. Feeney’s arguments in this matter: Rule 10:33. Given these facts, I, therefore, order Mr. Feeney pay, forthwith: $2,500 to TD General Insurance Company, $2,500 to TD Home and Auto Insurance,

$2,500 to Security National Insurance Company, $2,500 to Alberta, and $2,500 to Mr. ter Kuile. [ 55 ] Counsel for the TD Defendants shall prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Feeney shall be served this Decision and the corresponding court Order to his email address: keenan.feeney@gmail.com. [ 56 ] I am aware that Mr. Feeney is unlikely to agree with this result. Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to SRLs, I note to Mr. Feeney that, if he seeks a review this Decision and its outcome, then Mr.

Feeney should seek leave from the Alberta Court of Appeal, pursuant to the terms of Feeney v Alberta ABCA #3 . Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 29 th day of November, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Keenan A.

Feeney Self-represented Litigant Desiree Winters Whitelaw Twining LLP for the Applicants TD General Insurance Company, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, and Security National Insurance Company Cynthia Hykaway and Tim Dooley Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Applicant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta Colleen Sinclair, The City of Calgary - Law, Legal Services for the Applicant Mike ter Kuile