Weidenfeld v Alberta (Minister for Seniors and Housing), 2022 ABKB 765

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Weidenfeld v Alberta (Minister for Seniors and Housing), 2022 ABKB 765 Date: 20221117 Docket: 2110 01286 Registry: Red Deer Between: Robert Weidenfeld Applicant - and - Her Majesty the King in Right of Alberta as Represented by the Minister of Seniors and Housing Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Justice G.D.B.

Kendell _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On October 19, 2022, this Court in a Decision reported as Weidenfeld v Alberta (Minister for Seniors and Housing), 2022 ABKB 688 [ Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 ] granted an Application by the Alberta Minister for Seniors and Housing [Alberta] to strike out an Originating Application filed by Robert Weidenfeld [Mr. Weidenfeld] pursuant to Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . Mr.

Weidenfeld was also ordered to pay Alberta $4,000 in costs, forthwith: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at para 33 . [ 2 ] In Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 , the Court made two important conclusions: 1. the Application struck out was a collateral attack against prior proceedings, because Mr. Weidenfeld was both repeatedly re-

litigating issues, but also attacking this Court’s conclusions on those issues ( Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at paras 13-19 ); and 2. the Application had no basis in law, because Mr. Weidenfeld’s claim was both contrary to settled Canadian law, and non- justiciable ( Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at paras 20-24 ). [ 3 ] The Court in Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 also identified a broader issue concerning Mr. Weidenfeld. First, Mr. Weidenfeld was repeatedly and persistently re-litigating the same issues before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at para 25 . Mr.

Weidenfeld had developed an aggressive litigation attack pattern, targeting opposing legal counsel, and a Clerk of the Court, personally: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at paras 25-26 . [ 4 ] Furthermore, Mr. Weidenfeld had an extensive record of unsuccessful and abusive litigation in Alberta, the Tax Court of Canada, the Courts of Ontario and New Brunswick, and four unsuccessful leave applications before the Supreme Court of Canada: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at paras 27-28 . The available record exhibits patterns of repeated, persistent problematic litigation, and included sharp criticism by judicial decision makers.

For example, Mr. Weidenfeld’s litigation in Ontario and Alberta illustrates Mr. Weidenfeld, without any legal basis, has repeatedly targeted his landlords, refused to pay rent, and then taken litigation and tribunal steps to frustrate the landlords’ rights: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at para s 27 . [ 5 ] I concluded that Mr. Weidenfeld’s litigation history established a pattern of repeated and persistent abusive litigation. On that basis, I invited Alberta to initiate a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 application to impose prospective court access gatekeeping on Mr.

Weidenfeld: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at para 31 . Mr. Weidenfeld was also made subject to interim court access gatekeeping: Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at para 31 . [ 6 ] Counsel for Alberta was asked to provide an answer whether Alberta would initiate a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process by November 15, 2022.

On November 14, 2022, Counsel for Alberta responded that Alberta would not be making any such application. [ 7 ] Judicature Act ss 23.1(1) states the Court may impose court access gatekeeping “... on application or on its own motion , with notice to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General ...” [emphasis added]. In Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 , the Court of Appeal held that this Court should only exercise its authority to initiate vexatious litigant proceedings on its own motion where parties to that litigation were invited to take that step, and did not do so. [ 8 ] That has now occurred with Mr.

Weidenfeld, and: 1. in parallel to the procedure and applying the factors in Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 405 in paras 6-18 , and 2. taking into account the repeated and persistent abusive litigation by Mr.

Weidenfeld in Alberta proceedings, and in other Canadian courts, I conclude that I have now satisfied the preconditions for the Court to exercise its residual “own motion” authority to initiate a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application. [ 9 ] This Court’s usual procedure is that Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 processes are conducted on a document-only basis: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 565-577 . I, therefore, request Mr.

Weidenfeld make written submissions as to whether his persistent abusive litigation: 1. should result in prospective court access restrictions, pursuant to Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1, and 2. what should be the scope of those court access restrictions, if any? [ 10 ] A copy of this Decision will be directed to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General pursuant to Judicature Act , s 23.1(1). [ 11 ] Submissions and supporting affidavit evidence should be received from Mr. Weidenfeld by January 6, 2023.

If the Ministry seeks to participate in this process, I request that its written submissions and affidavit evidence is received on the same date. [ 12 ] For clarity, the interim court access restrictions imposed in Weidenfeld v Alberta #4 at para 31 will now continue until the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process is completed. Dated at the City of Red Deer, Alberta this 17 th day of November, 2022. G.D.B. Kendell J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: Robert Weidenfeld for the Self-Represented Litigant Nate Gartke Alberta Justice, Constitutional and Aboriginal Law for the Applicant