Feeney v Hobbs, 2023 ABKB 153

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Feeney v Hobbs, 2023 ABKB 153 Date: 20230315 Dockets: 1801 11164, 2101 02332, 2101 08266 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket: 1801 11164 Keenan Anthony Feeney Plaintiff - and - Paul Hobbs, John Doe, and XYZ Corporation Defendants And between: Docket: 2101 02332 Keenan Anthony Feeney Plaintiff - and - John Doe 1, John Doe 2, XYZ Corporation, and The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act Defendants

And between: Docket: 2101 08266 Keenan Feeney Plaintiff - and - Landon Reid Warkentin, John Doe, and XYZ Corporation Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Keenan Anthony Feeney (Mr.

Feeney) is a very active litigant whose repeated and persistent abusive litigation has resulted in him being subject to global court access restrictions gatekeeping in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta ( Feeney v TD General Insurance Company , 2021 ABQB 947 , aff’d 2022 ABCA 118 ( Feeney v TD #3 )), the Court of Appeal of Alberta ( Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta , 2021 ABCA 255 ( Feeney ABCA #5 )), and the Federal Court of Canada ( Feeney v Canada , 2021 FC 1213 , aff’d 2022 FCA 190 ).

Both the Court of Appeal of Alberta and Court of King’s Bench of Alberta have also imposed controls on Mr. Feeney’s communications with the Courts in response to his disruptive, uncontrolled, abusive, and bullying communications: Feeney (Re) , 2022 ABQB 569 ; Feeney ABCA #5 . [ 2 ] The result of Feeney v TD #3 is that Mr. Feeney must obtain permission of the Court – “leave” – prior to initiating or continuing Court of King’s Bench of Alberta legal processes. When Feeney v TD #3 was issued, that had the effect of staying three then ongoing lawsuits by Mr.

Feeney: • Feeney v Hobbs , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 1801 11165 ( Hobbs Action ) - In a Statement of Claim filed on August 7, 2018, Mr. Feeney alleged he, a pedestrian, was struck by a motor vehicle in Airdrie, Alberta. A subsequent Amended Statement of Claim, filed September 27, 2018, indicates the date of the alleged event was May 22, 2017, and that Mr. Feeney suffered injuries that allegedly warrant general and special damages of $250,000. • Feeney v John Doe #1 , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 02332 ( Doe Action ) – In a Statement of Claim filed on February 16, 2021, Mr.

Feeney alleges that on October 16, 2019 he was in a motor vehicle collision, and sustained physical and psychological injuries. He sues for $225,000. • Feeney v Warkentin , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 08266 ( Warkentin Action ) – In a Statement of Claim filed on June 25, 2021, Mr. Feeney alleges he was in a motor vehicle collision on November 14, 2020, and sustained physical and psychological injuries. He sues for $225,000. In these three lawsuits Mr. Feeney is represented by Litwiniuk LLP, or Litco Law. [ 3 ] Feeney v TD #3 at para 52 provided a detailed mechanism for how Mr.

Feeney may seek to initiate or continue litigation affected by the leave gatekeeping process of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Despite that, and for no apparent reason, Counsel for Mr. Feeney on September 14, 2022 ( Hobbs Action ) and January 26, 2023 ( Doe Action , Warkentin Action ) filed Justice Chambers

Applications that sought Mr. Feeney is granted leave to continue these lawsuits. Those matters were heard by Justice Devlin in Justice Chambers on March 1, 2023. When Justice Devlin declined to proceed with the three Feeney Applications, Counsel for Mr. Feeney then wrote Chief Justice Moreau and myself, seeking direction. [ 4 ] The appropriate process to evaluate Mr. Feeney’s Applications is set in Feeney v TD #3 . Mr. Feeney’s three Applications are accompanied by Affidavits that relate to the currently stayed litigation.

As the Administrative Justice who currently responds to abusive litigation and litigants in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, I now evaluate Mr. Feeney’s leave to continue litigation Applications by review of the filings provided by Counsel for Mr. Feeney. II.

Test for Leave to Continue Stayed Litigation [ 5 ] “... [A] person subject to court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019). [ 6 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of Court activities on the same standard.

A person subject to Court Access Restrictions must: 1) establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and 2) depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 .) [ 7 ] This threshold, which must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one, and, in many ways, parallels the test for

Summary Judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26.

The person subject to Court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an Action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 8 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, Application, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed initiating filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 9 ] Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 ; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 10 ] Leave submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1) where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38266 (31 January 2019); Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta v Drover , 2021 ABQB 511 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ); 2) if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place Foundation of Alberta v Templanza , 2019 ABQB 45 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABQB 208 ; Knutson (Re) , 2021 ABQB 367 ; McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 550 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 79 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 97 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Fiset v Feeney , 2022 ABQB 211 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 354 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 498 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ; Hayden v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2023 ABKB 100 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ); 3) where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); 4) where the abusive litigant provides false information or fails to provide necessary information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ); 5) where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as a transcript of a proceeding proposed for appeal ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); and 6) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ). [ 11 ] There is no appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta of a decision to deny leave to continue litigation: r 14.5(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 ; Re Gauthier , 2018 ABCA 14 at para 8 .

A litigant who is denied leave to continue litigation by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. III. Analysis

[ 12 ] Affidavit evidence has been submitted in support of each of the lawsuits that Mr. Feeney seeks leave to continue. In each instance those Affidavits of Mr. Feeney or Adina Bella include: 1) law enforcement records of the alleged collisions; and 2) either an expert report as to Mr. Feeney’s post-injury condition, or medical treatment records that purportedly relate to the injuries Mr. Feeney has allegedly suffered. [ 13 ] After review of the Affidavits, I conclude that Mr.

Feeney has satisfied the threshold to establish that reasonable grounds exist for the three lawsuits, and, therefore, grant permission that the Hobbs , Doe , and Warkentin Actions may continue, but with certain conditions that I will identify below. Further, I stress that in coming to this conclusion, my findings do not preclude or limit the Defendants from any future litigation steps that challenge the merit of Mr. Feeney’s litigation, for example r 3.68 or rr 7.2-7.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court Applications. [ 14 ] Mr. Feeney’s litigation record, as a self-represented litigant, is highly problematic.

That extends beyond Mr. Feeney’s Court activities, to inappropriate and abusive communications, ungrounded and extraordinary allegations, intimidation of Court staff and judges, and initiating criminal complaints against Court actors engaged in their proper duties. Mr. Feeney has even gone so far as to repeatedly claim in Court proceedings and Canadian Judicial Council complaints that a justice of this Court attempted to assassinate Mr. Feeney by tampering with the brakes on Mr. Feeney’s truck. [ 15 ] A particularly important element of Mr. Feeney’s litigation record is how Mr.

Feeney has engaged legal representation in the past. In 2014, Mr. Feeney swore a false Affidavit that claimed Mr. Feeney is an expert sniper and security professional with special forces military experience, and so Mr. Feeney should retain weapons because those are tools of his business. None of that was true, since Mr. Feeney had only served a brief period with the Canadian Armed Forces before being discharged on disability, and since has been unemployed, a fact actually acknowledged in Mr. Feeney’s leave to continue Affidavits. Mr.

Feeney’s false sworn statements were detected, which then led to perjury charges that were resolved by Mr. Feeney voluntarily agreeing to civil contempt sanctions. During resolution of the perjury charges Mr. Feeney was represented by counsel. After that, Mr. Feeney, as a self-represented litigant, reneged on his earlier voluntary contempt plea and then Mr. Feeney pursued multiple abusive Court of King’s Bench of Alberta proceedings and four unsuccessful Court of Appeal of Alberta appeals: Feeney ABCA #5 , see also Feeney v Alberta , 2022 ABCA 253 . [ 16 ] I am willing to accept that Mr.

Feeney’s current tort litigation is manageable while Mr. Feeney is represented by a lawyer. However, his history shows that Mr. Feeney is not manageable when he represents himself. Mr. Feeney has a history of retaining then dismissing counsel for apparently tactical, abusive objectives. [ 17 ] Combining those conclusions, I direct that leave is granted to continue the Hobbs , Doe , and Warkentin Actions , and that the leave to file requirement imposed in Feeney v TD #3 is waived for any litigation steps initiated by Mr. Feeney, via counsel, in the Hobbs , Doe , and Warkentin Actions , but only as long as Mr.

Feeney remains represented by a lawyer. [ 18 ] If Mr. Feeney becomes self-represented in any of the Hobbs , Doe , and Warkentin Actions , then: 1) the Action in question is stayed, pursuant to Feeney v TD #3 , and remains stayed until Mr. Feeney again obtains leave to continue that Action; 2) Mr. Feeney will have 60 days from when he becomes self-represented to pay $5,000 in security for costs to the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to rr 4.22-4.23 of the Alberta Rules of Court ; and 3) if security for costs is not paid, then the Defendants in the Action may apply to strike out the Action. [ 19 ] Finally, Mr.

Feeney’s highly problematic record means that his litigation in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta should be managed by a single justice. I therefore direct that any leave to initiate or continue litigation made pursuant to the court access gatekeeping imposed in Feeney v TD #3 should be directed to myself, or a designated justice of this Court. IV. Conclusion [ 20 ] Leave is granted for Mr. Feeney to continue the Hobbs , Doe , and Warkentin Actions , contingent on Mr. Feeney continuing to retain counsel to conduct that litigation. If Mr.

Feeney represents himself in any of these Actions, then the court access gatekeeping imposed in Feeney v TD #3 will resume. [ 21 ] Counsel for Mr. Feeney shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 15 th day of March, 2023.

K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Joshua D. Haase Litwiniuk LLP o/a Litco Law for the Plaintiff Keenan Andrew Feeney