Hok v Alberta (Court of Queen’s Bench), 2021 ABCA 321

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Hok v Alberta (Court of Queen’s Bench), 2021 ABCA 321 Date: 20210924 Docket: 2103-0193AC Registry: Edmonton Between: Shirley Anne Hok Applicant - and - The Honourable Justice D.L. Shelley, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Frans Slatter _______________________________________________________ Application for Permission to Appeal _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Mr. Justice Frans Slatter _______________________________________________________

Introduction [ 1 ] On November 21, 2016, the applicant was found to be a vexatious litigant: Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 , [2017] 6 WWR 831, permission to appeal refused 2017 ABCA 63 , leave to appeal refused, [2017] 2 SCR vii. She accordingly requires permission under R. 14.5(1)(

j) to launch any appeal. On July 29, 2021, the applicant was directed to pay a penalty of $2,000 for contravening the rules and directions of the court, as provided for by R. 10.49(1): McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 601 at paras. 15-16 . The applicant seeks permission to appeal. [ 2 ] The application for permission to appeal names as respondents only the Court of Queen’s Bench and the trial judge who assessed the penalty against the applicant. This is improper, as the trial court is not a party to an appeal. Further, judges are not proper parties to the litigation. They are judges.

The application must be dismissed for that reason alone. [ 3 ] The applicant clearly feels aggrieved, but she has not disclosed any basis for an appeal. She appears to challenge the fact findings underlying previous orders, but those findings cannot be challenged at this time. She also challenges the fact findings underlying the civil penalty that was assessed against her, which she describes as “MALICIOUSLY-CONTRIVED falsehoods/LIES”, but she has not disclosed any viable reviewable error. Her allegations of a widespread court-based conspiracy against her are without merit.

There are no viable Charter of Rights questions raised. [ 4 ] The applicant also complains about the processing of her application for a stay of a different decision. The application for a stay was properly referred under R. 14.48(

a) to the “judge who made that decision”: see McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 550 . There was nothing improper about that procedure, and it has no impact on the civil penalty assessed against her. [ 5 ] This application for permission to appeal uses the same inflammatory and unacceptable language as this applicant has previously used: see as examples McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 601 at para. 5 , Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 at para. 6 and McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 601 at paras. 5-6.

Further, the application does not set out any viable ground of appeal with respect to the assessment of the penalty. [ 6 ] Further, since the applicant has been found to be a vexatious litigant, she is not entitled to any fee waiver: Ministerial Order (Fee Waivers) , M.O. 22/2020, para. 5. This application should not have been filed without payment of the filing fee, and if permission to appeal had been granted it would only have been on the condition that the fee be paid now. Conclusion [ 7 ] In

summary, this application is totally devoid of merit and it is dismissed. Application heard on September 22, 2021 Reasons filed at Edmonton, Alberta thi s 24th day of September, 2021 Slatter J.A. Appearances: Applicant, S.A. Hok Respondent, The Honourable Justice D.L. Shelley (no appearance)