Hayden v Hayden, 2022 ABKB 648

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Hayden v Hayden, 2022 ABKB 648 Date: 20220928 Docket: 1801 13923 Registry: Calgary Between: Ingrid Hayden Applicant - and - Bradley J. Hayden, Bradley J. Hayden Professional Corporation, William Armstrong, and Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Proposed Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ingrid Hayden [Ms. Hayden] is an aggressive, relentless, and seemingly unstoppable abusive litigant. Ms.

Hayden’s successive hopeless lawsuits, and illegal applications, have now continued in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench and other Alberta tribunals for well over a decade. Ms. Hayden is also a highly active but consistently unsuccessful appeal court litigant, who has, since 2019, filed five Supreme Court of Canada leave to appeal applications, two of which are currently under consideration. On November 17, 2020, Ms. Hayden was made subject to prospective court access gatekeeping in a decision of Neufeld J reported as Hayden v Hayden , 2020 ABQB 700 , leave to appeal denied 2021 ABCA 202 [ Hayden v Hayden ].

[ 2 ] Since then, Ms. Hayden has attempted to initiate additional hopeless and abusive actions on five separate occasions ( Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 647 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 97 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 498 ), which has led to a total of $11,000 in penalties. Those penalties have not been paid. [ 3 ] Now, Ms. Hayden has escalated her steps to harass and misuse this Court even further.

On August 4, 2022, Ms. Hayden simply ignored the prohibition on her filing materials with the Court, except with permission - leave - and made a further application in the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , Docket No. 2101 08260 foreclosure proceeding. That led to an entirely unnecessary and hopeless hearing before Applications Judge Farrington, and then another September 1, 2022 Decision by myself, reported as Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 593 [ CIBC v Hayden #5 ], where I ordered: 1. Ms.

Hayden is prohibited from filing any document with the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench, except with leave of the Court. 2. If Ms. Hayden seeks leave to file any document with the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench, Ms. Hayden must submit that document to my office, along with a supporting affidavit as specified in Hayden v Hayden , at para 47 (2). 3. Any document or attempted filing that does not meet these criteria will be discarded without any response, except that the Court may impose further penalties, as appropriate. 4. The Clerks of the Court shall refuse any document, candidate filing, or other item from Ms.

Hayden, except if that document, candidate filing, or other item is accompanied by a letter or Order of myself, or my designate, that permits filing. 5. Ms. Hayden is prohibited from submitting any document to my Office:

a) that attempts to initiate a legal process or step in the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench Docket 2101 08260 foreclosure proceeding, pursuant to paragraph 2 above;

b) except where Ms. Hayden provides proof that Ms. Hayden has paid the $11,000 in Rule 10.49(1) penalties previously assessed. [ CIBC v Hayden #5 , at para 7 , emphasis in original.] [ 4 ] Consistent with Ms. Hayden’s well-established practices, she, within only four days, completely breached and ignored the CIBC v Hayden #5 Order that had attempted to constrain and structure her court access. Rather than seek leave to file any new document, by sending that document to my office, Ms. Hayden, on September 5, 2022, wrote to Chief Justice Moreau a letter that states: ...

Please find attached an application and an affidavit, requesting to set aside the [ Hayden v Hayden ] vexatious litigant Order. Because of the involvement of Justice Rooke in enabling the vexatious litigant Order to be obtained. I am also asking that any Order made by Justice Rooke to be dismissed, as outlined in my affidavit and application. [ 5 ] The body of Ms. Hayden’s Application reads: Remedy claimed or sought: 1. An Order vacating the vexatious litigant Order. 2. An Order declaring that vexatious litigant Order was obtained by mis-represented facts. 3.

An Order that all Orders by Justice Rooke be vacated because of his involvement in obtaining the vexatious litigant Order. 4. An Order to be made whole. Grounds for making this application 5. The vexatious litigant was obtained by mis-representation Material or evidence to be relied on: 6. The attached affidavit of Ingrid Hayden Any irregularity complained of or objection relied on: 7. The judgement against me are being made by Justice Rooke, who was involved in the mis-representation of obtaining the vexatious litigant Order. 8. The vexatious litigant Order was obtained by several mis-represented facts.

But not for the actions of one or more of all involved the vexatious litigant Order would not have happen. [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 6 ] The 162-page Affidavit of Ms. Hayden that was part of the September 5, 2022 package essentially claims that all court decisions against her are wrong and/or unauthorized, and should be unwound. [ 7 ] Upon receipt and review of Ms. Hayden’s September 5, 2022 materials, that were forwarded to me by Chief Justice Moreau,

I observed that they are obviously in breach of the CIBC v Hayden #5 Order, and are a blatant and flagrant attempt at “judge shopping”: where a litigant seeks to circumvent the authority and jurisdiction of a judge by directing their litigation to a different judge. Judge shopping is a recognized strategy used by bad conduct litigants to evade court litigation, and an abuse of the Court that merits litigation and litigant management: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 307 , 677-678. [ 8 ] Ms. Hayden’s September 5, 2022 Application is rejected on multiple independent bases. Ms.

Hayden: 1. did not follow the procedure set in CIBC v Hayden #5 ; 2. has engaged in judge shopping to circumvent my authority; 3. has engaged in a collateral attack on the Hayden v Hayden decision, that she then unsuccessfully attempted to appeal; 4. has collaterally attacked the outcomes of practically every decision that relates to her, made in this Court, and confirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada; and 5. provided absolutely no evidence that the court access restrictions imposed in Hayden v Hayden and CIBC v Hayden #5 should be reduced or eliminated. [ 9 ] When a person is made subject to court access gatekeeping, that legally means a presumption now exists that any new litigation or further litigation step by that person is an abuse of process: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , leave denied 2018 ABCA 111 .

The onus is therefore on that litigant to displace the presumption that his or her proposed filing is an abuse of process: Re Thompson at para 32; Bernard v Canada (Professional Institute of the Public Service) , 2020 FCA 211 at para 7 . [ 10 ] To obtain the remedy that Ms. Hayden seeks - removing the Hayden v Hayden court access gatekeeping - would require that Ms. Hayden establish a basis, probably through a history of valid litigation, to show Ms. Hayden no longer needs that gatekeeping, because she is a good intentioned, non-abusive, fair-dealing litigant. Instead, Ms. Hayden has once more done the opposite.

The September 5, 2022 Application is categorically rejected, because all that attempted filing does is continue and expand the dismal litigation record Ms. Hayden has accumulated, now for over a decade. [ 11 ] Mindful of my obligations to provide information to self-represented litigants concerning their litigation options, as set in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , I remind Ms. Hayden that there is no appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal of this Decision: Rule 14.5(4). Ms.

Hayden may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada, if she disagrees with this outcome. [ 12 ] In British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities , 2022 SCC 27 , Wagner CJC at para 1 indicated this Court is obligated to triage abusive litigation, because that is “access to justice”: Access to justice depends on the efficient and responsible use of court resources. Frivolous lawsuits, endless procedural delays, and unnecessary appeals increase the time and expense of litigation and waste these resources.

To preserve meaningful access, courts must ensure that their resources remain available to the litigants who need them most - namely, those who advance meritorious and justiciable claims that warrant judicial attention. [Emphasis added.] [ 13 ] I have exhausted the Court’s mechanisms to manage Ms. Hayden, as they were defined and limited by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 . I simply cannot take any useful steps to achieve the policy objective set by Chief Justice Wagner in British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities . Instead, predictably, Ms.

Hayden will take additional future steps to achieve her intended objectives: to do whatever she wants, however she wants it. This ridiculous farcical festival will now continue to cycle over and over, around and around, with no end in sight. And Ms. Hayden is far from unique.

Others also operate the same way, ignoring court procedure, resisting, or simply defying, any attempt at management, such as Chinedu Gideon Ubah ( Ubah v Ubah , 2022 ABQB 534 ), Keenan A Feeney ( Feeney (Re) , 2022 ABQB 569 ), Janice Dmyterko ( Dmyterko (Re) , 2022 ABQB 579 ), Sandra Ann Anderson ( Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 537 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 577 ), Salim Rana ( Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 139 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 141 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 220 ), and many more.

They do whatever they want, squander court resources, harass and threaten staff, and incrementally erode the operation of courts and tribunals, often across many jurisdictions. [ 14 ] I do not see that as “access to justice”. But such is the state of things in Alberta courts, because that is “the law”. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 28 th day of September, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Ingrid Hayden

Self-Represented Litigant