In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: Carter (Re), 2024 ABCJ 11 Date: 20240105 Docket: 2390305883 Registry: Edmonton Between: Glen Carter Applicant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on January 19, 2024; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Chief Justice J.A. Hunter [ 1 ] The Court has, over the past weeks, received a large amount of documentation from the applicant, Glen Carter, requesting leave of this Court to commence two separate proceedings. [ 2 ] Mr.

Carter has done so in order to comply with the order of Ashcroft J granted on August 9, 2019. In response to a judicial review application brought by Mr. Carter, Justice Ashcroft, on the Court’s own motion and inherent jurisdiction, declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed court access restrictions on him ( Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 491 [ Carter #1 ]). The terms of that order are attached as “Appendix A” to this Memorandum of Decision. The restriction that is most salient to this application is that Mr.

Carter is not permitted to commence a proceeding in this Court without applying first to the Chief Justice for leave. To be clear, the Order of Justice Ashcroft was made prior to the naming changes in this Court, as while the Court remains the same, the Provincial Court of Alberta is now known as the Alberta Court of Justice, and the Chief Judge is now styled as the Chief Justice. [ 3 ] In short, the first proceedings is in relation to his housing situation, and the other relates to what would amount to a negligence claim against his former dentist.

These are my reasons in relation the proposed negligence claim; the other proposed claim is explored in Carter (Re) , 2023 ABCJ 275 . The Claim [ 4 ] Between October 24, 2023, and November 1, 2023, the Court received several packages of documents via email from Mr. Carter which are a request to initiate claims in the Alberta Court of Justice. The second package relates to what would amount to a negligence claim against his former dentist, and was contained entirely in an email dated October 30, 2023. This decision deal with this proposed claim against Mr. Carter’s former dentist, a “Dr.

Gill”, who practices, or practiced in Calgary. [ 5 ] The documents received include a letter to the Chief Judge which sets out his claim, and an Affidavit. [ 6 ] Mr. Carter did not provide a copy of the proposed Civil Claim that he wants to file as required in paragraph 4(iii)(

b) of Justice Ashcroft’s Order. While this alone is fatal to his application, this Court, in the interest of judicial economy, will evaluate his

purported claims on the basis as set out in his letter to the Chief Judge referred to previously. [ 7 ] Mr. Carter alleges that Dr. Gill provided inadequate dental services to him in relation to the repair through filling of his teeth. [ 8 ] What seems to be the most at issue is that Mr. Carter received white fillings rather than the mercury amalgam fillings that he was most used to, and seemingly preferred. He alleges that he did not receive a treatment plan in relation to his dental work needed, and that he did not provide informed consent to the use of the white fillings.

Some of those fillings have allegedly failed. Mr. Carter claims that was a result of the nature of the fillings, the failure of the Dentist to provide appropriate aftercare information, the failure to provide follow up care, the failure of the Dentist to fully advise him of the risks of the procedure and to obtain informed consent, and the failure to Dr. Gill to install the fillings adequately. [ 9 ] Mr. Carter, at this time, had at least some dental coverage through Alberta Works. Mr. Carter also alleges that Dr.

Gill did not comply with the regulations as required, in that he did not send a pre-authorization listing all the required dental work, and that by not doing so, disadvantaged him, since he was unable to receive the services when the coverage ended.

Test for Leave to Initiate Litigation [ 10 ] A person who is subject to court access restrictions is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019) [ Re Thompson ]. [ 11 ] In order to obtain permission to initiate this litigation, Mr. Carter 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 [ 12 ] The threshold test for leave is similar to that for

summary judgment, in that that the applicant must show that there is merit to the claim, and that the applicant must “put their best foot forward” in their application. This is not onerous, as it is merely marshalling the evidence that they would need in any case for their proposed litigation ( Re Thompson , at paras 25-27). [ 13 ] Further, to determine the reasonableness of the proposed litigation, the Court may take into account the purposes of the specific court access restrictions, economic aspects of the proposed litigation, failure to pay costs, and the potential the justice system will be misused.

This is part of a broad and contextual evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed litigation ( Knutson (Re) , 2023 ABKB 589 , citing Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 245 ). A salient point by the British Columbia Court of Appeal is: [46] In deciding whether to grant a vexatious litigant leave to commence a proceeding, a judge is entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances, keeping in mind that the vexatious litigant order is in place to prevent misuse of the justice system, not as a punitive measure.

The judge must guard against the very real possibility that the vexatious litigant, true to past form, is seeking to press proceedings that will waste court resources and serve to harass litigants.

Of course, the judge must also consider the possibility that the litigation is not abusive, and that denying leave might result in a serious injustice to the applicant. … [49] The result is this: where a vexatious litigant seeks leave to commence a new proceeding, the court must be convinced that the proposed proceeding is not doomed to fail and is not brought for an improper purpose or otherwise a clear abuse of process.

Once the court is satisfied that the litigant has met those minimal requirements, the court may consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether to exercise discretion in favour of granting leave. Where a serious injustice might result from a failure to allow the litigant to pursue the claim, discretion will invariably be exercised in favour of granting leave. On the other hand, where it is clear that a claim is weak, of no real importance, and uneconomical to litigate, discretion will almost certainly be exercised against granting leave.

Many cases, of course, will fall between these two extremes, and the judge hearing the application will have to exercise judgment and decide whether leave should be granted. Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 245 at paras 46 , 49. [ 14 ] As referenced previously, the required documents are an affidavit to present evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, Application, Appeal, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed filing: Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 . [ 15 ] Further, leave may be granted in part, which means that some parts of the claim may be acceptable, and others, not.

It is for the Court to decide. [ 16 ] Other grounds for refusing leave applications are where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation; where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335); where the abusive litigant provides false information or fails to provide necessary information; where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step; where the court has no jurisdiction over the matter; and where the applicant does not have standing to make the leave requests.

Analysis

[ 17 ] Mr.

Carter bears the onus of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that he has both reasonable grounds for the litigation, and must depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. [ 18 ] On a first analysis of the claim, there seem to be reasonable grounds for the litigation in that he alleges that he had a dental procedure performed and that procedure failed because of the Dentist’s alleged negligence. [ 19 ] The issue, however, is intertwined with the second aspect of the test, deposing fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the claim.

As in the related decision, Carter v Horizon Housing Society , the information provided in the letter outlining the proposed claim is substantially more complete than the information provided in sworn form in the affidavit. Further, there are issues with dates throughout the documents. Some may be typographical errors, such as references to work performed in 2029, when it should have been 2019. Others are not as clear. For example, Mr.

Carter is relatively consistent in the timeline that the services were initially performed in 2019, and that he returned for follow up care in September of 2020 in relation to a fractured tooth. He saw a different dentist at that time who reinforced the fillings put in by Dr. Gill. He also attended upon Dr. Gill again on October 28. What year is unclear. At one point, it is stated to be “October 28, 2021 2020”. Later in the Letter it is stated to be October 28, 2021. The Affidavit states that he returned on October 28, 2020, when Dr.

Gill saw him regarding another broken tooth, but did not assist him in creating a dental plan that he could have taken to Alberta Works for an emergency voucher. [ 20 ] In my view, this is fatal to the claim. It seems clear in his materials that Mr. Carter was aware of possible negligence by October 28, 2021 at the latest. He had, at that point, suffered at least two fractured teeth, and attended upon another dentist for reinforcement. The Court received his letter requesting permission to commence an action on October 30, 2023. This is fatal due to the operation of the Limitations Act , RSA 2000, c L-12 .

That act states that: 3(1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2) and sections 3.1, 3.2 and 11, if a claimant does not seek a remedial order within (a) 2 years after the date on which the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known, (

i) that the injury for which the claimant seeks a remedial order had occurred, (ii) that the injury was attributable to conduct of the defendant, and (iii) that the injury, assuming liability on the part of the defendant, warrants bringing a proceeding, or (b) 10 years after the claim arose, [ 21 ] While a Defendant is entitled to immunity upon pleading the provisions of that act, this defence is plainly obvious, and in the context of the Court exercising a gatekeeper function at this stage, it is appropriate to deny leave to bring a proceeding for that reason. There is no reference by Mr.

Carter as to any possible reason why the limitation should not apply. Conclusion [ 22 ] Mr. Carter has failed to establish that there are reasonable grounds for the litigation on the basis of a probable limitations defence. Further, permission is further denied on the basis that the Affidavit does not adequately depose to all the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim. [ 23 ] Mr. Carter’s request to initiate proceedings based upon the materials filed is refused.

This result is final, as an application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. [ 24 ] A Court is obliged to provide information to self-represented litigants concerning their litigation options as set out in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 . An appeal of this decision is to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. [ 25 ] Mr. Carter shall be served with this decision to the email provided: aspired908@gmail.com. Heard on the 06 th day of December, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of January, 2024.

J.A.

Hunter Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Glen Carter Written Application Appendix A [1] Glen Carter is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited from, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate i. commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, without an order of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted, and ii. exercising rights and making an information- or privacy-related request as authorized under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 , without an order of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Court.

Glen Carter must describe himself in any application for leave or document to which this Order applies as “Glen Carter”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Glen Carter must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and i. The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceedings is justified. ii.

The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages. iii. The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding. iv. If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it. v. The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. vi. If the single appeal judge grants Glen Carter leave to commence an appeal, Glen Carter may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j).

An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of this Order restricting Glen Carter, access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Glen Carter proposes to file;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed appeal, application, or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that it is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; and

d) indicating whether Glen Carter has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars.

To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Glen Carter shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate: i. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person. ii. Any application shall be made in writing. iii. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Glen Carter’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Glen Carter proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Glen Carter has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. i. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to: 1) the involved potential parties; 2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and 3) the Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. To exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request as authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 , Glen Carter: i. shall submit an application to:

a) the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, and

b) the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. ii. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request be given to any other person. iii. Any application shall be made in writing. iv. Any application to exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Glen Carter’s access to the processes authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 ;

b) attaching a copy of the proposed information- or privacy-related request that Glen Carter proposes to submit;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed information- or privacy-related request, so as to demonstrate that the request is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Glen Carter has ever made an information- or privacy-related request to the party or parties which hold the information that Glen Carter seeks to obtain, and, if so, providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized information- or privacy-related request, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the party or parties which hold the information that Glen Carter seeks to obtain; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the information- or privacy-related request. v. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta shall, within 30 days of receipt of an application by Glen Carter to exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request as authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 , submit to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate:

a) a written recommendation on whether Glen Carter’s proposed information- or privacy-related request should be granted or denied leave;

b) whether the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta recommends that submissions or other materials be received from any other potentially involved party;

c) whether Glen Carter’s information- or privacy-related request should be evaluated in open Court; and

d) any other information or recommendations that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta considers relevant to Glen Carter’s information- or privacy-related request. vi. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed information- or privacy-related request and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed information- or privacy-related request, if they so choose, to: 1) the involved potential parties; 2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and 3) the Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. Leave to commence or continue proceedings, or to initiate an information- or privacy-related request, may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.

Glen Carter is prohibited from: i. providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any court, except on his own behalf; and ii. acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie , [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 , s 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representative in court proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal.

The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Glen Carter unless: i. Glen Carter is a named party in the action in question, and ii. if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Glen Carter has been granted leave to take that step by the Court. All fee waivers granted to Glen Carter by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked.

The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Glen Carter, unless Glen Carter has a court order which authorizes that step. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts.

Glen Carter is prohibited from, on his own behalf or on the behalf of any other person or estate: i. commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, and any Court outside of Alberta; ii. conducting or continuing any proceeding before any Canadian administrative tribunal, including, without limitation, complaints to any professional or regulatory body, or claims to a human rights commission or tribunal;

iii. submitting an information to a justice per Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 , s 504; or iv. making a complaint to any peace officer; except where Glen Carter simultaneously provides a copy of this Decision, and the August 9, 2019 Court Order made pursuant to this Decision which imposes court access restrictions on Glen Carter. The approval of Glen Carter as to the form and content of this Order is not required per Rule 9.4(2)(c). _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Chief Justice J.A. Hunter _______________________________________________________ i. Citation number has been changed due to being filed in 2024.