Wolf v Oasis Mobile Home Park, 2022 ABKB 740

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wolf v Oasis Mobile Home Park, 2022 ABKB 740 Date: 20221107 Dockets: 2201 07859, 2201 07908 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket 2201 07859 Raven Wolf Plaintiff - and - Oasis Mobile Home Park Defendant And between: Docket 2201 07908 Raven M. Wolf Applicant - and - Alberta Crown Members Respondents

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Raven Wolf [Mr. Wolf] has developed a record of abusive litigation at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Mr.

Wolf has initiated a succession of abusive lawsuits that were all struck out pursuant to the Civil Practice Note No. 7 “show cause” procedure: Wolf v Oasis Mobile Home Park , 2022 ABQB 300 [ Wolf #1 ]; and actions struck out as an abuse of court, 2022 ABQB 368 [ Wolf #2 ]; Wolf v Oasis Mobile Home Park , 2022 ABQB 500 [ Wolf #3 ], and actions struck out as an abuse of court, 2022 ABQB 529 [ Wolf #4 ]. In light of Mr.

Wolf’s expanding record of repeated, persistent, abusive, and hopeless litigation, I requested ( Wolf #4 at para 13 ) that Oasis Mobile Home Part and the Attorney General of Alberta indicate whether either would pursue a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 application to impose prospective court access gatekeeping on Mr. Wolf’s activities before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 2 ] On August 31, 2022, by letter, counsel for the Attorney General of Alberta [Alberta] indicated that Alberta would pursue a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application in relation to Mr. Wolf.

In a Decision reported as Wolf v Oasis Mobile Home Park , 2022 ABQB 607 [ Wolf #5 ], this Application was set for a document-only process pursuant to this Court’s usual practice ( Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 565-577 [ Unrau #2 ]): 1. Alberta shall, by October 14, 2022, file and submit to my office the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application, written submissions, and affidavit evidence; 2. Mr.

Wolf has until October 28, 2022, to file and submit to my office written submissions and response affidavit evidence; and 3 rebuttal argument by Alberta shall be filed and submitted to my office by November 4, 2022. [ Wolf #5 at para 3 .] [ 3 ] Alberta’s submissions and affidavit materials were received on October 14, 2022. The deadline for Mr. Wolf’s materials was October 28, 2022. Nothing was received from Mr. Wolf by that date, however, on November 2, 2022, Mr. Wolf physically attended the Calgary Court Centre and insisted on meeting with me, personally. Court staff correctly refused that meeting. Mr.

Wolf then provided eight pages of Alberta Court of King’s Bench form documents, with irregular handwritten contents. I have reviewed those documents, though they were late, as though these were Mr. Wolf’s written submissions. After review of the November 2, 2022 materials, I find I can immediately proceed to complete the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process. II. Application and Submissions A. Alberta [ 4 ] Alberta’s Application seeks that the Court: 1. declare that Mr. Wolf is a “vexatious litigant”; 2. impose court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 that prohibits Mr.

Wolf from initiating or continuing litigation in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, except with permission of the Court; and 3. impose costs of $2,025. [ 5 ] Counsel for Alberta argues that Mr. Wolf has an established pattern of abusive hopeless litigation, inadequate pleadings, indecipherable actions, legal actions that are collateral attacks on prior proceedings, and litigation that seeks excessive and impossible remedies. In relation to the last point, Alberta notes that Mr. Wolf repeatedly seeks extraordinary monetary awards of $900 trillion from opposing parties.

This pattern of litigation misconduct is repeated and persistent. That satisfies the criteria for a litigation gatekeeping order pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1. [ 6 ] Alberta’s position is that there remain no real disputes as to whether Mr. Wolf has, or has not, engaged in abuse of the Court and opposing litigants. The CPN7 decisions that struck out Mr. Wolf’s five lawsuits establish all relevant facts. Mr. Wolf did not appeal those results. Alberta notes that Mr. Wolf’s litigation existed in two waves, where Mr.

Wolf had the benefit of the Court’s reasons for why his first lawsuits were an abuse of the Court. Mr. Wolf’s next set of abusive actions had the exact same defects as the first. In these circumstances, and given Mr. Wolf’s persistent and repeated pattern of starting new abusive lawsuits on the same and/or related subjects, Alberta asserts that a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 order is the only potential litigation and litigant mechanism to address Mr. Wolf’s abuse of the Court and opposing parties.

B. Mr. Wolf [ 7 ] Mr. Wolf’s November 2, 2022 documents are two largely duplicate sets of documents that include the following handwritten information: No one has the right to deny me to defend myself a judge or judge’s is obstructing justice by denying me to defend myself Judge Rookie and 25 other buffoons Judge are denying my Right as a Canadian citizen that which is a violation my Sovereign Right as a Canadian Citizen [Sic.] [ 8 ] I put no weight Mr. Wolf’s November 2, 2022 materials. The court access gatekeeping sought by Alberta in relation to Mr.

Wolf has no effect on him defending himself against lawsuits, or responding to steps initiated by others. What court access gatekeeping does is prevent Mr. Wolf from starting litigation and litigation steps, that target others, except with permission of the Court. Mr. Wolf has no constitutional right to engage in abusive litigation. As Chief Justice McLachlin concluded in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v British Columbia (Attorney General) , 2014 SCC 59 at para 47 : ...

There is no constitutional right to bring frivolous or vexatious cases, and measures that deter such cases may actually increase efficiency and overall access to justice. [ 9 ] It is now too late for Mr. Wolf to say he does not engage in abusive litigation. That was determined in Wolf #1 to #4 . Mr. Wolf did not appeal those Decisions. On these bases I will not further discuss Mr. Wolf’s November 2, 2022 materials. They are irrelevant to the analysis that follows. III.

The Law [ 10 ] The Alberta Court of Appeal in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 [ Lymer ] ruled that the question of whether or not a person should be subject to prospective litigation gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 is a backwards looking exercise that focuses on the litigation record of an abusive litigant to evaluate whether that person has engaged in certain forms of litigation misconduct, some that are itemized in Judicature Act s 23(2), and others that have been identified in case law.

In Alberta, the broadly adopted Unrau #2 decision provides a comprehensive review of the “indicia” of abusive litigation that potentially warrant court intervention. Court access restrictions are a “last ditch” step that may only be imposed after other litigation management approaches have failed, and when less intrusive alternatives, such as case management, are ineffective: Lymer . IV. Analysis and Conclusion [ 11 ] I generally agree with and adopt the evidence, arguments, and conclusions advanced by Alberta in relation to Mr.

Wolf. [ 12 ] As explained by Stratas JA in Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at paras 35-40 , when evaluating abusive litigants, “focused” evidence is necessary, rather than “... an encyclopedia of every last detail about the litigant’s litigation history.” I will not conduct a comprehensive review of the Respondent’s litigation because, as Counsel for Alberta correctly identified, those findings of fact and law are already found in the Wolf #1 to Wolf #4 Decisions. This Court has already concluded that Mr.

Wolf has engaged in persistent, repeated litigation misconduct of a kind that is identified in Judicature Act s 23 and Unrau #2 as warranting court intervention by imposing prospective litigation gatekeeping. [ 13 ] There is no real question that some lesser step can manage Mr. Wolf. His pattern of simply starting new, hopeless, and abusive litigation means case management is useless and ineffective. Similarly, the proposed global court access gatekeeping is appropriate because: 1. Mr. Wolf has engaged a wide range of actors, who, to the degree Mr.

Wolf’s complaints can be evaluated, are involved in multiple separate disputes; 2. Mr. Wolf’s litigation is both amorphous and its parties are undefined; for example the Docket No. 2201 07908 documents sue “Alberta Crown Members”; and 3. Mr. Wolf seeks overly broad and illegal remedies. [ 14 ] I, therefore, conclude that Mr.

Wolf is a vexatious litigant, and should be subject to the court access gatekeeping in the proposed Order submitted by Alberta. [ 15 ] 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. Wolf, if Mr. Wolf disagrees with the result of this Decision, he may appeal this result with the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 16 ] Alberta has been entirely successful. Mr. Wolf is ordered to pay Alberta the costs sought in its application, $2,025, forthwith. Mr.

Wolf’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 7 th day of November, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Melissa N. Burkett & Devin Aman Legal Services Division Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Applicant