McClelland v Harrison, 2023 ABKB 638

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: McClelland v Harrison, 2023 ABKB 638 Date: 20231110 Docket: FL03 54719 Registry: Edmonton Between: Robert David McClelland Plaintiff - and - Tricia Lorraine Harrison Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Tricia Lorraine Harrison (Ms. Harrison) is in a high conflict family dispute proceeding ( Family Action ) with her former partner, Robert David McClelland (Mr. McClelland). Ms.

Harrison has generally been self-represented during this litigation, although she has indicated she has had eight different lawyers at certain points. The Family Action encountered difficulties during its process up to trial. A Case Management Justice was assigned. Issues that developed in the lead up to trial included: 1) Ms. Harrison initiated a collateral attack duplicate proceeding that was struck out pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 on multiple independent bases ( Harrison v McClelland , 2022 ABQB 547 , action struck out 2022 ABQB 589 );

2) Ms. Harrison’s pattern of repeated abusive and bullying emails to the Court resulted in Ms. Harrison being prohibited on an interim basis from any email communications with the Court justices, staff, officers, and employees ( McClelland v Harrison , 2022 ABQB 554 ( Harrison #2 )); and 3) Ms. Harrison ignored the prohibition in Harrison #2 , and resumed her abusive and bullying email activity with the Court, which led the Case Management Justice to impose a $1,000 penalty pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 ( McClelland v Harrison , 2022 ABQB 604 ( Harrison #4 ).

The Harrison #4 penalty has never been paid. [ 2 ] The Family Action trial was conducted in fall 2022. After the trial justice made his oral decision, Ms. Harrison sent staff of the Court at least 17 entirely inappropriate threatening and bullying emails that included obscene language and death threats. In a Memorandum of Decision reported as McClelland v Harrison , 2022 ABKB 852 ( Harrison #5 ) I reviewed Ms. Harrison’s ongoing history of abusive and improper conduct with the Court, applied the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to take steps to control and protect its operations and processes, and to limit Ms.

Harrison’s bullying of Court decision makers and personnel ( Harrison #5 at paras 6-7 ), and imposed the following strict communication structure on Ms. Harrison: 1) Ms. Harrison is prohibited from any direct or indirect communication with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, except in documentary form, and where those documents are submitted to the Court either by:

a) registered mail or courier, addressed to the “Manager, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Administration”, or if directly communicating with a Justice or Applications Judge of this Court, to the Judicial Assistant of that Justice or Judge, or

b) filing or submitting documents via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Ms. Harrison in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . 2) To exclude any confusion, that means that Ms. Harrison is prohibited from:

a) any communication with any Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Clerks, Judicial Assistants, Court Coordinators, or other Court of King’s Bench of Alberta staff;

b) personally appearing at the Court’s Counters, or reception desks; and

c) filing or otherwise submitting documents by entering the courthouse and physically depositing those documents; without an Order of the Chief Justice, or Associate Chief Justice, or her or his designate, which permits that contact. 3) Any materials received from Ms. Harrison, including communication of any kinds, documents, and purported filing, that are received by means other than the approved forms, shall be immediately discarded without any response. ( Harrison #5 at para 8 .) [ 3 ] In Harrison #5 at para 9 , I cautioned Ms. Harrison that she must abide by this communication structure, and “...

If she fails to abide by the Court’s Order, Ms. Harrison can anticipate additional r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court penalties ...”. [ 4 ] Ms. Harrison’s then current email address, “trish796@gmail.com”, was blocked. [ 5 ] Through to May 2023 the remaining issues in the Family Action were resolved. Case Management by Kiss J was concluded on July 18, 2023. Mr. McClelland on September 14, 2023 applied for an Order permitting international travel with the children of the relationship. That Order was granted by Leonard J on November 3, 2023. Ms. Harrison did not appear at that hearing. [ 6 ] Instead, Ms.

Harrison repeatedly emailed the Court in breach of the Harrison #5 procedure, on: October 31, 2023 , as “ms.harrison.6776@gmail.com”. November 2, 2023 , as “TriciaH84@hotmail.com”, in a lengthy email that is functionally legal argument, demanding an “expedited” “Emergency Hearing” for a “Without Notice Application” that would, broadly, reverse the Family Action steps to date, and impose a Restraining Order on Mr. McClelland. Attached were several “Emergency Motions” and unsigned Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Orders that named now former Chief Justice Moreau as the Justice issuing the Order. Ms.

Harrison in her email calls these “draft Order(s)”, that are each dated November 2, 2023. November 2, 2023 , as “ms.harrison.6776@gmail.com”, sent the same content as the “TriciaH84” email, with some documents as attachments, other documents as “drive.google.com” links. November 7, 2023 , as “Motherofthree222@hotmail.com”, sent three PDF “Orders” to the urgent request filing email address for the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. These documents all purport to be issued by former Chief Justice Moreau on November 2, 2023, but are unsigned. Ms. Harrison’s email provides no explanation for these documents.

November 8, 2023 , as “Motherofthree222@hotmail.com” demands an “emergency hearing” because a relative of Mr. McClelland is dying, and without any legal basis challenging the international travel Order that was made by Leonard J on November 3, 2023. [ 7 ] Briefly, the three purported November 7, 2023 “Orders” are: 1) an “Emergency Order” that the international travel Order Application by Mr. McClelland is dismissed pre-emptively on an ex- parte basis, and that the outcome of the Family Action trial decision is reversed, so that Ms. Harrison has custody and control of the

children of the relationship; 2) an “Emergency Order” that unilaterally imposes steps on Mr. McClelland, ranging from destroying videos and records, prohibiting Mr. McClelland from making child services, law enforcement, Canada Revenue Agency, or Maintenance Enforcement Program claims/complaints in relation to Ms. Harrison, and a restraining order against Mr.

McClelland; and 3) an “Emergency Order” that blocks an arrest warrant issued by Morinville R.C.M.P. because that warrant is “... void and unenforceable.” These documents were not filed by the Clerk of the Court, and instead were brought to my attention. [ 8 ] Ms. Harrison has proven to be entirely unmanageable. Despite the Court having offered Ms. Harrison every courtesy and accommodation, she has, instead, persistently and repeatedly refused to follow court directions. In her most recent activities, Ms.

Harrison: 1) repeatedly breached the communications structures imposed in Harrison #5 at para 8 ; 2) deliberately changed her email address multiple times, with the obvious purpose of evading steps to manage her communications with the Court; 3) attempted to initiate court processes that are an obvious collateral attack on the Family Action trial and outcome, the November 3, 2023 international travel Order, and an arrest warrant; 4) attempted to pre-empt Mr.

McClelland’s international travel Application, and then did not participate in the actual hearing; and 5) submitted the unsigned “Emergency Orders” of former Chief Justice Moreau for filing, without explanation. [ 9 ] On the last point I draw a negative inference and conclude that Ms. Harrison took that step in an attempt to obtain court-filed orders to achieve her illegal and abusive ends, when she did not obtain the “expedited” “Emergency Hearing.” What Ms. Harrison has done is perilously close to fraud. Given she is a very experienced litigant, I would not accept any innocent explanations to the contrary. Ms.

Harrison knows exactly what she is doing – and that is taking any steps that she thinks will potentially give her the result she wants, with no respect for the effects on Court staff, judicial resources, Mr. McClelland, and degradation of public confidence in the operation and function of this Court. When Ms. Harrison interacts with the Court, she operates as though “she is the law”. Rules are for other people. [ 10 ] Ms. Harrison’s continuing pattern of abusive and bullying conduct requires a response. [ 11 ] A first litigant management step is that Ms.

Harrison’s communication and interactions with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta require yet further and more stringent control. Ms. Harrison obviously did not abide by the steps I imposed in Harrison #5 at para 8 , and, instead, has demonstrated she actively seeks to subvert those processes. I, therefore, conclude that a more strict communication scheme is required to replace the Harrison #5 at para 8 process.

This tighter scheme is modelled on the procedure imposed to manage the abusive, bullying, and contemptuous conduct of pseudolaw litigant Sandra Ann Anderson in Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 525 at para 62 . [ 12 ] The communications protocol in Harrison #5 at para 8 is vacated, and, instead, I Order: 1) Ms. Harrison is prohibited from any direct or indirect communication with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, except:

a) in documentary form and by registered mail to my office, or the office of my designate; or

b) by filing or submitting documents via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Ms. Harrison in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . 2) To exclude any confusion, that means that Ms. Harrison is prohibited from:

a) any communication with any Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Clerks, Judicial Assistants, Court Coordinators, Court decision- makers, or other Court of King’s Bench of Alberta staff, for example by email, telephone, letters or other correspondence, and faxes;

b) personally appearing at the Court’s Counters, or reception desks; and

c) filing or otherwise submitting documents by entering the courthouse and physically depositing those documents; without an Order of myself or my designate, which permits that contact. 3) Ms. Harrison is prohibited from filing any documents with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, except according to paragraph 1(b), and, unless Ms. Harrison engages the services of a lawyer, the only way that Ms. Harrison may file any documents with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta is if:

a) those documents are received by my office, or my designate, by registered mail;

b) after review, those documents are determined to be legally valid and not an abuse of the Court; and

c) Ms. Harrison then pays a filing and document review fee set by the Court. 4) Ms. Harrison may only communicate with my office and file documents using the name “Tricia Lorraine Harrison”, and not using

initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. 5) Any materials received from Ms. Harrison, including communication of any kind, documents, and purported filings, that are received by means other than the approved forms, shall be referred to my office, or to my designate, for punitive steps. 6) When Ms. Harrision is permitted to file any document with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, that filing may include a pre- requisite that Ms. Harrison is required to pay outstanding penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court , unpaid costs awards made in favour of Mr.

McClelland, and/or security for costs, in an amount determined by the Court. 7) When a document submitted by Ms. Harrison is rejected pursuant to this Memorandum of Decision, Ms. Harrison may be required to pay a penalty amount. [ 13 ] I caution Ms.

Harrison in advance if she attempts to send any email to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta via a new email address so as to evade communications management steps, she will be in breach of this communications management protocol, and will be assessed a penalty pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 14 ] As a second litigation management step, I warned Ms. Harrison at Harrison #5 at para 9 that if she breached the communications structure imposed in that Memorandum of Decision, she should anticipate additional penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court .

As discussed above, Ms. Harrison has repeatedly ignored my directions. I, therefore, direct Ms. Harrison pay, forthwith, to the Clerk of the Court a $1,000 penalty pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Ms. Harrison was cautioned, and so now the Court imposes the outcome it had warned would result. [ 15 ] Finally, litigation and litigant management steps should not be hollow gestures or empty symbols, but instead provide meaningful and effective steps to avoid pointless expenditure of limited court and judicial resources.

Chief Justice Wagner recently in British Columbia (Attorney General) v Council of Canadians with Disabilities , 2022 SCC 27 at para 1 stressed this point. Chief Justice Wagner made explicit that “efficient and responsible use of court resources” is a core characteristic of “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. [ 16 ] I conclude that since Ms. Harrison’s litigation misconduct is largely contained in the Family Action , I should exercise this Court’s “ Grepe v Loam ” inherent jurisdiction authority (from Grepe v Loam , (1887) 37 Ch D 168 (UK CA) ) to impose an additional litigation management step.

The “ Grepe v Loam ” litigation management authority is broadly recognized in common law jurisdictions (reviewed in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 342-352 ( Unrau #2 )), and was described this way by the Court of Appeal of Alberta in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 at para 18 : In England it has long been accepted that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to control applications in an existing proceeding, notwithstanding any parallel statutory jurisdiction: Grepe v Loam (1887), 37 Ch D 168 (CA) .

Such orders are a logical extension of case management orders. [ 17 ] The inherent Grepe v Loam jurisdiction to manage litigation was also recently reviewed by Mainella JA in College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba v Hancock , 2023 MBCA 70 , who endorsed the Grepe v Loam litigation management steps identified by Rooke ACJ in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 346 . [ 18 ] I conclude that a fair and proportionate step to manage Ms. Harrison’s otherwise uncontrollable court-related activities is that if Ms.

Harrison is permitted to file a document or documents in the Family Action , pursuant to the process in paragraph 12 above, Ms. Harrison is also in addition required to pay the $2,000 in penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court that Ms. Harrison has accumulated in this matter to date as a precondition to filing the document or documents. This step is required to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Ms.

Harrison’s open defiance and rejection of court processes and Orders, her abuse and bullying of court personnel, and her mockery of the operation and decisions of this Court, requires a meaningful response. [ 19 ] The Court will prepare the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. The approval of Ms. Harrison as to the form and content of that Order is not required pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court . This Memorandum of Decision and the Order shall be served on Ms.

Harrison by email. [ 20 ] 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 Ms. Harrison, if Ms. Harrison disagrees with the result of this Memorandum of Decision, she should seek a remedy with the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 10 th day of November, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: None