McClelland v Harrison, 2022 ABKB 852

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: McClelland v Harrison, 2022 ABKB 852 Date: 20221216 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 subject dispute proceeding ( Family Action ) with her former partner, Robert David McClelland (Mr. McClelland). Ms.

Harrison has generally been self-represented during this litigation, though 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 email 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 ignoring the prohibition in Harrison #2 , and resuming her abusive and bullying email activity with the Court, that led the Case Management Justice to impose a $1,000 r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 penalty ( McClelland v Harrison , 2022 ABQB 604 ( Harrison #4 ). [ 2 ] Kraus J conducted the Family Action trial from September 12-21, 2022 and written materials were subsequently received in October and November, 2022. The trial proceeding was difficult. Ms.

Harrison only intermittently appeared during those proceedings, and when she did appear, she was frequently late: McClelland v Harrison (15 December 2022), Edmonton FL03 54719 (Alta KB) ( Harrison #5 ). During that proceeding Ms. Harrison at points rejected the trial as unfair and biased. Ms. Harrison made inappropriate statements about Mr. McClelland, counsel, and court actors. The trial Justice concluded that Ms. Harrison’s at trial conduct “... was not acceptable. ...”: Harrison #5 . [ 3 ] The Family Action oral Decision was given on December 15, 2022. Ms. Harrison attended by teleconference.

Part way through the teleconference Ms. Harrison exited the Court proceeding. A number of issues remained potentially outstanding at the end of the trial. Justice Kraus instructed those outstanding issues, and costs, would be addressed via written submissions due on January 31, 2023. [ 4 ] On December 15-16, 2022, Ms. Harrison sent to the Court at least 17 emails, most of which were addressed to the Court’s judicial assistants. None of these emails were appropriate.

Some examples read: • Im going to kill him. • Thank you forr noteven giving me anything, just I suspected no judge in Alberta will ever care about me or my kids. • I’m going to kill him thank joy for destroying our life • Rot in hell you asshole • Rot in hell you stupid bitch • I will kill him. Thank you for ruining our life. • Three kids are victims. I hope you sleep well at night. • I will kill him. Look how happy youll be then :) go fuck yourselves • The appeal is started. • Go fuck yourselves. He just about killed me.

Justice Kraus erred there is no proof before the court Mr.Danyluk ever paid 892.00… how can I be granted sole custody of one child and supervised parenting of my babies in another province. Your going down. Fuck you. • I will kill him. Such a good judge [ 5 ] These examples are representative of the content of Ms. Harrison’s December 15-16, 2022 email communications. They speak for themselves. [ 6 ] The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has a broad function-driven inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes.

That includes, where appropriate, imposing restrictions on a person’s communications with the Court (e.g. Re Boisjoli , 2015 ABQB 690 ; McKechnie (Re) , 2018 ABQB 677 ), and banning attendance at Court facilities, except to appear at Court (e.g. McKechnie (Re) , 2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2019 ABQB 196 ). [ 7 ] Ms. Harrison knows what she did was wrong. This Court has previously exercised its inherent authority to control its processes in relation to Ms. Harrison’s inappropriate, abusive, and bullying communications: Harrison #2 ; Harrison #4 .

In Harrison #2 at paras 6-8 , Kiss J identified the Court’s obligations to its personnel: ... While all persons who interact with the Court are expected to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner, there are certain employees within the Court who are particularly vulnerable. These are the front line staff: the Clerks of the Court, Court Coordinators, Judicial Assistants, and Sheriffs. Their professional obligation is to assist and facilitate persons who seek Court services. Unfortunately, these individuals are sometimes the targets of abuse, threats, and worse.

As Shelley J observed in Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok at para 10 : The Court Clerks serve a critical function as part of the administration of justice in this province. They are the front line of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. They are required to assist litigants and others who have business with the Court. However, the obligation to provide these services to the public does not extend to them being bullied, abused, or otherwise mistreated in an unfair and unprofessional manner. ...

Nielsen ACJ in JSG v AG , 2021 ABQB 841 noted at para 42 how legal and academic commentary on abusive litigants has historically neglected this factor. Similarly, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lochner v Ontario Civilian Police Commission , 2020 ONCA 720 at para 18 stressed: ... Vexatious litigants are a drain on our system of justice. In addition to being a burden on the opposing parties, they are a burden on the

judiciary and court personnel . At least the judiciary has mechanisms to attempt to address the conduct of vexatious litigants, but court personnel are ill-equipped to do anything when faced with a barrage of telephone calls, emails, and other communications frequently characterized by incendiary and rude remarks . The cost and time incurred by opposing parties is significant, and adverse costs awards frequently cannot be relied upon to discourage future comparable behaviour. (Emphasis added.) ... Protecting the Court and its staff is not just a matter of good practice, and common decency, but also a legal obligation. Occupational Health and Safety Act , RSA 2000, c O-2 .1, s 3(1)(

b) requires employers, including the Government of Alberta and this Court, to take reasonable and practical steps to prevent workplace harassment and bullying. (Emphasis in original.) [ 8 ] I conclude that Ms. Harrison’s future communications with the Court should be structured to prevent additional abuse of the Court and its staff. I, therefore, order that: 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 Mr. 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 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. [ 9 ] I very strongly caution Ms. Harrison that she abide by these communications restrictions. 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. [ 10 ] The Court will prepare the Order giving effect to this decision. The approval of Ms. Harrison as to the form and content of this Order is not required per r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . This Memorandum of Decision and the Order shall be served on Ms. Harrison by email. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 16 th day of December, 2022. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: None