Carter v Horizon Housing Society, 2023 ABKB 558

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Carter v Horizon Housing Society, 2023 ABKB 558 Date: 20231005 Docket: 2301 13002 Registry: Calgary Between: Glen Carter Proposed Appellant - and - Horizon Housing Society and Calgary Housing Company Proposed Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] In 2019 Glen Carter (Mr.

Carter) was made subject to court access restrictions in a Memorandum of Decision reported as Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 491 ( Carter v Alberta #1 ). Mr. Carter is required to obtain permission of the court – “leave” – prior to initiating or continuing litigation in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Mr. Carter initiated steps to appeal Carter v Alberta #1 , but that litigation was not pursued.

[ 2 ] Mr. Carter in correspondence dated September 1, 2023 submitted a request to my office that Mr. Carter is granted leave to initiate an appeal of an Order of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) that resulted from an August 3, 2023 hearing where the Tenancy Dispute Officer confirmed valid service of a notice to vacate, and that Mr. Carter must exit a rental property by August 25, 2023 ( RTDRS Decision ). The landlord in question was the Horizon Housing Society (Horizon).

The Order resulting from the August 3, 2023 hearing was filed with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta on August 16, 2023, that was then served on Mr. Carter on August 23, 2023. [ 3 ] Mr. Carter has also filed a reciprocal claim against Horizon, that the Tenancy Dispute Officer concluded should be heard separately on a later date. [ 4 ] Mr. Carter’s September 1, 2023 materials include a letter requesting confirmation that his leave request was directed to the correct Court office/official, a proposed “Application by Glen Carter” that challenges the RTDRS Decision , and a supporting but unsworn Affidavit of Mr.

Carter, that attaches a number of additional documents. Confusingly, the proposed Application seeks steps taken under Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation , Alta Reg 98/2006 ss 19(1)(

b) and 19(5) ( RTDRS Regulation ). Section 19(1) grants a tenancy dispute officer the authority to “clarify” orders of the RTDRS. Section 19(5) does not exist. However, since Mr. Carter elsewhere in his materials states that he wants “... to commence an appeal ...” of the RTDRS Decision , I will conduct the following analysis on the assumption that what Mr. Carter seeks is the Court grant leave to conduct an appeal of the RTDRS Decision , pursuant RTDRS Regulation ss 23-29. [ 5 ] Subsequent to the September 1, 2023 materials, my Office has received many emails from Mr.

Carter, apparently attempting to broaden his activities into the Alberta Court of Justice. On September 18, 2023 I responded by letter: I will not provide any instructions on how to initiate or continue a proceeding before the Alberta Court of Justice. That is the jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Justice, see Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 491 at paragraphs 102 (4), 102(13). [ 6 ] Mr. Carter subsequently on September 25, 2023 sent a further package of materials that largely duplicate the September 1, 2023 documents. Mr.

Carter in his September 25, 2023 materials states he has sent these additional materials because: Due to the longstanding issue of police et al interference with my online communications, the leave requests created using Ms-word were adulterated in some areas by these natural persons, hence the need for me to manually reverse these errors. [ 7 ] The September 25, 2023 materials appear to repeat that Mr. Carter is seeking this Court dictate litigation steps before the Alberta Court of Justice, and now also matters of some type before the Alberta Ombudsman. As I told Mr.

Carter the previous week, this Court has no jurisdiction outside its own processes. I therefore will not further address the September 25, 2023 materials. II. Mr. Carter’s Leave Request [ 8 ] Mr. Carter at certain points in his proposed Application frames his complaint in what could be called procedural issues, such as: 1) bias by the Tenancy Dispute Officer; 2) the Tenancy Dispute Officer speaking more nicely to Horizon’s representatives; 3 Mr. Carter not being permitted to fully express himself at the August 3, 2023 hearing; 4) inadequate service; and 5) being incorrectly denied immediate hearing of Mr.

Carter’s counterclaim. [ 9 ] However, the key underlying issue in dispute is summarized in paragraph 11 of the proposed Application, where Mr. Carter states: The Landlord terminated the tenancy on two questionable grounds, namely (

a) the applicant made unfounded accusations, and (

b) he was not a good fit for the accommodation. The Tenancy Dispute Officer failed to interpret these grounds as discriminatory (emphasis added) in nature and treat them accordingly. ... the applicant was retaliated against by the Landlord. Allegations that the Landlord failed to investigate in order to fully assess their credibility, the Landlord carelessly dismissed as unfounded. Since this party’s approach was unreasonable the Tenancy Dispute Officer failed to come to a decision in this area. (Bold in original.) [ 10 ] The proposed Application and Mr. Carter’s Affidavit detail these allegations. Mr.

Carter reports he determined that several “... hidden audio/visual device(s) ...” were concealed in the apartment where Mr. Carter was living. Mr. Carter detected the presence of these devices because he could observe electronic noise on his smartphone camera. Mr. Carter reports Horizon did not properly investigate these claims. When Mr. Carter sought “... to access relevant documents of the Landlord in order to prove his allegation ...” Horizon did not cooperate. [ 11 ] Mr. Carter also seems to allege that Horizon was directly involved in this monitoring, that was part of a larger scheme or conspiracy: ...

The fact however remains that he in concert with others discriminated (emphasis added) against the applicant by choosing to harass him just for exercising his protected rights.

(Bold in original.) [ 12 ] This electronic monitoring is not the only example of clandestine harassment identified by Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter in his Affidavit describes how someone broke into his apartment, and tampered with an electronic clock radio. Subsequently, Mr. Carter explains that another intruder or intruders has “disabled” his apartment toilet and thermostat. Mr. Carter also says Horizon failed “... to investigate a Volatile Organic Chemical incident ...”, but does not explain what that means. [ 13 ] Mr. Carter’s Affidavit also explains this is part of a much larger pattern.

He had for years sought to obtain information via FOIP requests against the Calgary Police Service (CPS), and City of Calgary. That led to litigation in 2018 before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta demanding information from CPS, the Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mr.

Carter provides an overview of what was going on then and now: I was subjected, and continued to be subjected, to surreptitious aerial surveillance by Calgary Police Service and others, computer access monitoring, interference with personal items stored in rented accommodations and a self-storage facility in Calgary, and extensive searches for a long period of time as a whole. I am prohibited from making FOIP access requests to CPS relating to these matters except with leave of the Court. [ 14 ] Mr. Carter makes separate claims of wrongdoing against the Calgary Housing Company (CHC), which appear to relate to Mr.

Carter being dissatisfied with how CHC had arranged for Mr. Carter’s housing, and failing to properly supervise Horizon and “... the tenancy under the Rent Supplement Regulation and remind the landlord of his obligations under this rule exacerbated the situation ...”. Mr. Carter also demands CHC disclose information and materials to establish the surveillance in Mr. Carter’s former apartment. [ 15 ] Besides that, Mr. Carter alleges his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the Constitution Act , 1982,

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) , 1982, c 11 ( Charter ) rights were infringed, which appears to relate to an alleged intrusion into Mr. Carter’s privacy. III. Test for Leave to Initiate Litigation [ 16 ] “... [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). [ 17 ] 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 .) [ 18 ] This threshold, that 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. [ 19 ] In addition, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 345 stressed a broad and contextual evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed litigation.

To determine whether a leave request is reasonable, a court may take into account the purposes of the specific court access restrictions (para 34), economic aspects of the proposed litigation (paras 40, 49), failure to pay costs (para 47-48), and the potential the justice system will be misused (para 46). [ 20 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, Application, Appeal, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed initiating filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 21 ] 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). [ 22 ] 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 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 79 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 97 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); 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 ; Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 295 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2023 ABKB 384 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ; Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2023 ABKB 390 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ); 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 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ); 6) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ); and 7) where the individual subject to court access restrictions does not have standing to make the leave request ( Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ). [ 23 ] There is no appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta of a decision to deny leave to initiate or 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 initiate or continue litigation by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. IV. Leave to Appeal is Denied [ 24 ] Leave to appeal the RTDRS Decision is denied on multiple independent bases. A. Alleged Misconduct [ 25 ] Reduced to its core, Mr. Carter’s proposed Application is grounded on the same alleged error by Horizon and the Tenancy Dispute Officer. That is that both incorrectly rejected Mr.

Carter’s claims concerning covert surveillance, which is also part of a much broader conspiracy of police, government, and other unknown parties. [ 26 ] This Court has on several previous occasions responded to Mr. Carter’s claim he is monitored by agents with a bad intent. In Carter v Alberta #1 , Ashcroft J reviewed Mr. Carter’s extensive litigation and information requests that all revolved around Mr. Carter’s demands for information to prove the conspiracy against him. Justice Ashcroft rejected Mr. Carter’s allegations were valid, and summarized his claims this way: ...

He believes he has been for the past 20 years the target of a broad surveillance program by a range of known and unknown entities. In his Originating Application he put it this way: The Applicant is believed to be on a United Nations Security Council 1267 anti-terror watch list based on the sharing of secret intelligence and intergovernmental decision making (which the Appellant is alleging involves the province of Alberta, the United Kingdom and the United States).

Also, based on the fact that the United Kingdom's Security Service (Mi5) (whose role and function is that of safeguarding national security and combatting terrorism) presently hold intelligence information about the Applicant. ... ... The materials before the Court describe the kinds of surveillance and harassment Mr. Carter claims are ongoing. For example, Mr.

Carter indicates he is allegedly “persistently surveilled by CCTV systems”, and is “shadowed by members of the public (both within the United Kingdom and Canada) while accessing public washrooms, public computers, public transit systems, shopping malls, supermarkets, fast food outlets, and other public and private places”. ... In sum, Mr. Carter believes he is being clandestinely observed by a myriad of actors, and that incidents in his life, such as sounds on his telephone, emergency vehicle sirens, and persons in his surroundings are evidence of such surveillance.

His court and tribunal activities flow from this belief. ... [ 27 ] Similarly, Rooke ACJ in Carter v Information and Privacy Commissioner , 2022 ABQB 517 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40502 (11 May 2023) ( Carter v IPC ) received an over 400-page package that alleged both government and Court misconduct that Mr. Carter advanced as a basis for the Court to grant Mr. Carter leave to file a FOIP request.

Much of those materials allegedly documented: ... camera surveillance systems, policies concerning homeless persons and homelessness, the operation of specific homeless support facilities in Calgary, and any of a myriad of interactions between Mr. Carter and named and unidentified persons, and complaints that flow from those. ... Associate Chief Justice Rooke also rejected these claims as not providing a basis for litigation. [ 28 ] The onus is on Mr. Carter to establish his proposed Application has a reasonable basis.

Manderscheid J in VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 52 , leave refused 2014 ABCA 121 , observed “[a]n extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” Mr. Carter has not provided any basis to substantiate his extraordinary claims, which, as I have illustrated, have already been rejected several times by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.

[ 29 ] I, therefore, conclude that Mr. Carter has not established a reasonable basis for his proposed litigation. This is the first basis on which I reject Mr. Carter’s leave request. B. Failure to Provide a Transcript [ 30 ] Part of a valid RTRDS decision appeal to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta is that the appellant provide a transcript of the proceeding: RTDRS Regulation s 23. Mr. Carter has not done so.

While arguably the procedure set out in RTDRS Regulation s 23 may not require that transcript as a precondition for filing , a transcript is an absolute requirement to complete and evaluate the appeal: RTDRS Regulation s 23(2). [ 31 ] Mr. Carter’s allegations of issues at the August 3, 2023 hearing include procedural fairness claims that this Court can only assess if it has a record of exactly what occurred at the RTDRS hearing.

As Moreau CJ concluded in Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 at paras 22-23 , that failure to provide a transcript of proceedings is fatal to a leave application where the proposed appellant challenges the subordinate decision-maker’s in-proceeding conduct. [ 32 ] This Court cannot evaluate the potential merit of Mr. Carter’s complaints without a transcript of the August 3, 2023 hearing. Mr. Carter has the onus to establish on a balance of probabilities that he has a reasonable basis for his proposed appeal. For example, Mr. Carter says that the Tenancy Dispute Officer cut him off.

A transcript is necessary to evaluate that claim. The failure to provide the August 3, 2023 hearing transcript is a second independent basis on which I refuse leave to Mr. Carter’s candidate appeal. C. CHC is an Uninvolved Third Party [ 33 ] A third separate issue with the proposed Application is it adds a third party to the litigation, CHC, which was not involved in the August 3, 2023 RTDRS hearing. Appeals are a process created by legislation. Here, the RTDRS Regulation does not include a mechanism to add parties who were not present in the RTDRS hearing. [ 34 ] Further, I note that none of what Mr.

Carter alleges in relation to CHC actually is a part of the landlord/tenant dispute over how Mr. Carter’s tenancy was terminated. [ 35 ] This is a third separate basis on which I conclude Mr. Carter’s proposed appeal should be denied leave, because it attempts to expand this action to include a third party to the tribunal proceedings. V. Conclusion [ 36 ] Mr. Carter’s proposed Application is refused filing on multiple independent bases. This result is final: Carter v Alberta #1 at para 102 (7).

Pursuant to my obligations to provide information to self-represented persons ( Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 ), concerning their litigation options, if Mr. Carter disagrees with this Memorandum of Decision, then his remedy is to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 37 ] This is now the third time that Mr. Carter has been denied leave by this Court: Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 808 ; Carter v IPC . Further, Mr. Carter has ignored my direct instructions concerning applying to this Court in relation to the Alberta Court of Justice. I caution Mr.

Carter that if he abuses this Court’s leave processes, he may be subject to additional litigation and litigant management steps, including penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . [ 38 ] Mr. Carter will be served this Memorandum of Decision by email to the address used by Mr. Carter: aspired908@gmail.com . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of October, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by submissions: Glen Carter Self-represented Litigant