Canjura v Neufeld, 2022 ABKB 780

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Canjura v Neufeld, 2022 ABKB 780 Date: 20221124 Docket: 2101 12591 Registry: Calgary Between: Orlando Canjura Respondent - and - Mark Neufeld in His Capacity as Chief of Police of City of Calgary Police Service Applicant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Orlando Canjura [Mr.

Canjura] has an extensive record of problematic litigation activities in the Alberta and Federal Courts: Canjura v Neufeld , 2022 ABQB 594 at paras 15-30 [ Canjura #1 ]. These actions emerge from Mr. Canjura’s claim that he is the target of a diverse and multiyear campaign of surveillance, hacking, and harassment activities. Mr. Canjura attributes this expansive pattern of illegal activity to “the US Entity”, which Mr. Canjura describes in this manner: “... The US entity is obscene in nature ... The US entity will pollute and corrupt the honest and hardworking, like a plague ...”: Canjura #1 at para 17 .

[ 2 ] On October 12, 2022, a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 Application was received from the Chief of the Calgary Police Service, Mark Neufeld [Chief Neufeld] that sought: 1. a declaration that Mr. Canjura has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings; 2. an order prohibiting Mr. Canjura from commencing or continuing litigation in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, except with leave of the Court; 3. an order prohibiting the Mr.

Canjura from continuing the Canjura v Neufeld , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. 2101 12591 Action, or staying that lawsuit; and 4. costs. [ 3 ] This Court conducts Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 processes on a document-only basis: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 28 at paras 546-577 [ Unrau #2 ] . In response to Chief Neufeld’s Application, this Court, in a Decision reported as Canjura v Neufeld , 2022 ABKB 699 [ Canjura #3 ], set a timeline for steps in the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application process: 1. Chief Neufeld shall by November 4, 2022 file with the Court and serve on Mr.

Canjura written argument and affidavit evidence in support of the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application; 2. Mr. Canjura has until November 18, 2022 to file with the Court and serve on Chief Neufeld a written reply and affidavit evidence in response to Chief Neufeld’s Application; and 3. Chief Neufeld shall by November 25, 2022 file with the Court and serve on Mr. Canjura his written rebuttal, if any, to Mr. Canjura’s written reply materials. [ 4 ] Chief Neufeld’s Written Argument was received on November 4, 2022. Mr.

Canjura has not submitted argument or affidavit evidence, but has sent several messages to my office. On November 4, 2022, Mr. Canjura responded to the Written Argument in an email addressed to Counsel for Chief Neufeld: ... I will not be wasting my time filing or attending any hearings. I have a different approach with matters that do not require the court. [ 5 ] Then on November 7, 2022, Mr.

Canjura sent a second email, that reads: The Court and [Counsel for Chief Neufeld] have been documented interfering in matters of the law & justice and doing fraud; the documents have been shared with lawyers and they agree; therefore every ruling issued by the Court is rendered invalid. I might want to file a memorandum of fact and law to dismiss the arguments presented and I will share it again with the lawyers. Fraud in the Court will not be tolerated and there are consequences for anybody doing fraud in the Court. Thank you [ 6 ] That was the last communication received from Mr. Canjura.

The deadline for his written reply and affidavit evidence has passed, and he has not complied with my directions. I, therefore, proceed to determine whether Chief Neufeld’s Application should be granted, in whole or in part. II. A

Summary of Mr. Canjura’s Activities [ 7 ] In the interest of judicial economy, I will not repeat the review of Mr. Canjura’s litigation activity conducted in Canjura #1 at paras 15-30 , but, instead, provide a broader overview of the information in that Decision. Mr. Canjura describes a conspiracy against him, that is conducted by “the US Entity” and its allies. This has allegedly involved sophisticated espionage and technical steps, for example, a planted laptop computer used to monitor Mr.

Canjura: ... a sophisticated operation from a James Bond movie, with a special shipment of a fraudulent laptop from the US to Canada with the intention to achieve hacking and impersonation. The laptop is the product of the US entity, RCMP and CPS ... [ 8 ] Mr. Canjura describes how telecommunications companies allegedly assist(ed) the US Entity by participating in the hacking scheme. Mr. Canjura’s phones are allegedly tampered with and hacked during break ins, and when Mr. Canjura attended a sports recreation centre, or via “social engineering” that he was tricked into downloading spyware. Mr.

Canjura also describes he is allegedly monitored directly by human agents, who follow him, observe him, and attempt to spy into and break into his residence. Mr. Canjura says he has identified persons taking clandestine photos of him in public places. [ 9 ] Mr. Canjura accompanies his claims with lengthy documents, that he calls “Complaints”, “Security Research”, and “Investigations”, that are gathered in “Reports”. Much of these materials are technical records, or telecommunications and Internet service billing records, demands for information based on Mr.

Canjura’s allegations, and reprints of technical and academic literature. [ 10 ] Mr. Canjura has engaged in extensive litigation in pursuit of the alleged US Entity, and to identify other malefactors. That includes: 1. consumer complaint litigation about the “fraudulent laptop” ( Canjura #1 at para 20-21 ); 2. six lawsuits in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that demand telecommunications and Internet-related information ( Canjura #1 at para 22 );

3. four Alberta Court of King’s Bench proceedings that target the Calgary Police Service, demanding information, and alleging police misconduct in failure to investigate and respond to Mr. Canjura’s US Entity allegations ( Canjura #1 at paras 23-24 ); 4. litigation in the Federal Court that parallels Alberta Court of King’s Bench litigation, demanding information and alleging fraudulent malicious actions ( Canjura #1 at paras 29-30 ). [ 11 ] Mr. Canjura’s activities in his pursuit of the alleged US Entity extend outside the Courts, too. Available records show Mr.

Canjura uses information-related tribunals, and has filed multiple Canadian Judicial Council [CJC] complaints against judges who have not acted in compliance with Mr. Canjura’s demands. [ 12 ] Problematic communications by Mr. Canjura to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench have escalated to the degree that, in response to Mr. Canjura’s repeated abusive and harassing emails, Mr. Canjura was prohibited from communicating with the Court by email: Canjura v Neufeld , 2022 ABKB 628 [ Canjura #2 ]. In those communications Mr.

Canjura, among other things, rejected court authority, expanded his allegations to include child pornography, and appears to have claimed that he and allies, “all the law firms in the country”, will be taking matters into their own hands, and malefactors will be “dismantled”: Canjura #2 at paras 4-6 . Mr. Canjura’s most recent communications to the Court continue this pattern. III. Chief Neufeld’s Submissions [ 13 ] Chief Neufeld takes the position that Mr.

Canjura has demonstrated a pattern of persistent, repeated litigation misconduct, and should be subject to prospective litigant gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 in litigation before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. The Applicant broadly adopts and confirms Mr. Canjura’s litigation record as summarized in Canjura #1 at paras 15-30 . Counsel for Chief Neufeld observes that in many critical senses the Court has already made determinative findings of fact and law in relation to Mr. Canjura and his activities, including: 1. Mr. Canjura has an extended record of repeated, unsuccessful litigation. 2.

Mr. Canjura seeks impossible and excessive damages awards and extraordinary steps to be taken by the Court and other actors. 3. Mr. Canjura engages in persistent and repeated appeals, and when his litigation and tribunal activities are stymied, he shifts to other Court and CJC processes. 4. Mr. Canjura’s claims and allegations are interrelated and build off each other. His numerous matters are part of a single larger litigation and dispute process which concerns his “investigation” of the “fraudulent laptop” and “the US entity”. 5. Mr.

Canjura’s activities include many indicia of abusive litigation that are an established potential basis for a court to intervene and impose litigation and litigant management steps. 6. Viewed globally, Mr. Canjura’s litigation apparently has no reasonable basis. 7. Mr. Canjura is not a suitable candidate for more limited litigation management steps because he engages in multiple proceedings and, when unsuccessful in one, Mr. Canjura switches to another. 8. Past attempts to impose litigant management steps have failed to control Mr. Canjura’s abusive litigation activities. 9. There is clear evidence that Mr.

Canjura is a persistent, repeated abusive litigant who cannot be managed except by prospective litigation gatekeeping. [ 14 ] Thus, as the Court has already established, Mr. Canjura has persistently and repeatedly conducted himself in abusive ways that are a potential basis for a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 order that imposes prospective court access gatekeeping. The Applicant notes that Mr. Canjura’s activity occurs within an overarching structure, unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy and fraud, framed with increasingly inflammatory language. Mr.

Canjura now openly refuses to acknowledge and/or accede to Court authority. [ 15 ] While prospective court access gatekeeping is an unusual remedy, in this instance Chief Neufeld says this step is appropriate, since Mr. Canjura’s pattern of repeated and persistent abusive conduct has been established. Other less intrusive litigation and litigant management steps are ineffective, given Mr. Canjura’s pattern of lawsuits, and the fact that Mr.

Canjura now openly rejects court authority. [ 16 ] The Applicant attaches an October 27, 2022 letter from Counsel for the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General that the Minister was served with Chief Neufeld’s Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application, and will not be participating in this proceeding. That satisfies the notice criterion set by Judicature Act s 23.1(1). IV.

The Law [ 17 ] 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 .

V. Analysis [ 18 ] I generally agree with and adopt the evidence, arguments, and conclusions advanced by Chief Neufeld in relation to Mr. Canjura. [ 19 ] 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 expand on the above review of the Respondent’s litigation in

Part II because, as Counsel for the Applicant has correctly identified, those “focussed” findings of fact and law were already made and documented in the Canjura #1 , Canjura #2 , and Canjura #3 Decisions. This Court has already concluded that Mr. Canjura 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. [ 20 ] Mr.

Canjura has had the opportunity to explain his litigation, and why he has not conducted litigation and other disputes in a manner that potentially warrants this Court’s intervention. The fact that Mr. Canjura’s response was, instead, to reject this Court’s jurisdiction, and say that he will then engage in some other, apparently vigilante response, is telling. [ 21 ] There is no real question that some lesser step can manage Mr. Canjura. His pattern of simply starting new, hopeless, and abusive litigation means case management is useless and ineffective. Furthermore, Mr.

Canjura simply ignores court instructions and rules. Mr. Canjura is frank and direct about that. He does not acknowledge his is bound by court processes, and will ignore those, until he gets what he wants. [ 22 ] Similarly, the proposed global court access gatekeeping is appropriate because Mr. Canjura has engaged a wide range of actors as part of his response to the US Entity. Mr. Canjura’s perceived conspiracy is both amorphous and unlimited.

Anyone, government employee or official, law enforcement officer, court worker, or a person drinking coffee in a restaurant, all are potential targets for their perceived link to the alleged nefarious and malevolent US Entity. [ 23 ] I, therefore, conclude that Mr. Canjura is a vexatious litigant, and should be subject to the court access gatekeeping, pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1: 1. The Interim Court Access Restrictions Order dated September 1, 2022 in Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. 2101 12591 is vacated, immediately. 2.

Orlando Canjura is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, or her or his designate. 3. To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Orlando Canjura must first submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or her or his designate.

If such an application is made: (

i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, 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 arising from this decision that restricts Orlando Canjura’s access to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Orlando Canjura 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 Orlando Canjura 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. (iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may:

a) require the applicant for leave to, or the Court on its own motion, 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; or

c) hear and dispose of the leave application in open Court where the decision shall be recorded. 4. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards. 5. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. 6. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court. 7. The Clerks of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Orlando Canjura unless: (

i) Orlando Canjura is a named defendant or respondent in the action in question, or (ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Orlando Canjura has been granted leave to take that step by the Court. [ 24 ] This Order has the effect of indefinitely staying the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action. In light of my conclusion that Mr. Canjura’s litigation is an abuse of the Court, including the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action, I instruct Mr.

Canjura, within 14 days of this Decision, to file with myself or my designate a Written Submission of up to ten pages to establish a basis for why the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action should not be struck out as an abuse of process. If no Written Submission is received by that deadline, then the Canjura v Neufeld , Docket No. 2101 12591 Action will be struck out, immediately. VI. Conclusion [ 25 ] Chief Neufeld’s Application has been entirely successful. Mr.

Canjura is designated as a vexatious litigant, and is subject to general and indefinite court access gatekeeping at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1. Given that outcome, I order Mr. Canjura pay Chief Neufeld $3,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 26 ] 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. Canjura, if Mr.

Canjura disagrees with the result of this Decision, he may appeal this result with the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 27 ] Counsel for Chief Neufeld shall prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Canjura’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the Order shall be served upon Mr. Canjura by email to: orlandoernestocanjura7@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 24 th day of November, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Orlando Canjura Self-represented Litigant Steven C. Schott Legal Services, City of Calgary for the Defendant