Canjura v Neufeld, 2022 ABKB 837

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Canjura v Neufeld, 2022 ABKB 837 Date: 20221212 Docket: 2101 12591 Registry: Calgary Between: Orlando Canjura Respondent - and - Mark Neufeld in His Capacity as Chief of Police of City of Calgary Police Service Applicant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Orlando Canjura [Mr.

Canjura] has an extensive record of problematic litigation activities in the Alberta and Federal Courts: Canjura v Neufeld , 2022 ABQB 594 at paras 15-30 [ Canjura #1 ]. These actions emerge from Mr. Canjura’s claim that he is the target of a diverse and multiyear campaign of surveillance, hacking, and harassment activities. Mr. Canjura attributes this expansive pattern of illegal activity to “the US Entity”, which Mr. Canjura describes in this manner: “... The US entity is obscene in nature ...

The US entity will pollute and corrupt the honest and hardworking, like a plague ...”: Canjura #1 at para 17 . [ 2 ] On November 24, 2022, in a Decision reported as Canjura v Neufeld , 2022 ABKB 780 [ Canjura #2 ], I concluded that Mr.

Canjura should be subject to court access gatekeeping at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1. That had the effect of staying indefinitely a lawsuit that Mr. Canjura had filed that named Chief of the Calgary Police Service, Mark Neufeld [Chief Neufeld] as the Defendant: Canjura v Neufeld , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. 2101 12591. In Canjura #2 at para 24 , I instructed Mr. Canjura to provide a basis for why the Canjura v Neufeld lawsuit should not be struck out: ... In light of my conclusion that Mr.

Canjura’s litigation is an abuse of the Court, including the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action, I instruct Mr. Canjura, within 14 days of this Decision, to file with myself or my designate a Written Submission of up to ten pages to establish a basis for why the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action should not be struck out as an abuse of process. If no Written Submission is received by that deadline, then the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action will be struck out, immediately. [Italics in original.] [ 3 ] Mr.

Canjura responded twice to the Canjura #2 Decision with two emails, each received on November 26, 2022. Their entire texts read: Your decisions are not valid, you are done with your careers and now you have to deal with the consequences. ... We will show you now what happens to lawyers when they do fraud [ 4 ] The time period for Mr. Canjura’s Written Submission has now passed. I conclude his emails were non-responsive. The Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action is therefore struck out. [ 5 ] Mr. Canjura sought damages of $120,000. In light of that quantum, Mr.

Canjura’s abusive conduct during the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 proceeding, the Defendant’s complete success, applying the factors identified in Rule 10.33(1), and

Schedule “C” of the Alberta Rules of Court , I conclude Mr. Canjura should pay Chief Neufeld $2,500 in costs, forthwith. [ 6 ] Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to self-represented litigants, such as Mr. Canjura, if Mr. Canjura disagrees with the result of this Decision, he may appeal this outcome at the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 7 ] Counsel for Chief Neufeld shall prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Canjura’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

This Decision and the Order shall be served upon Mr. Canjura by email. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 12 th day of December, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Orlando Canjura Self-represented Litigant Steven C. Schott Legal Services, City of Calgary for the Defendant