Uhrik v Terrigno, 2023 ABKB 223

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Uhrik v Terrigno, 2023 ABKB 223 Date: 20230417 Docket: 2101 05119 Registry: Calgary Between: Tibor Uhrik and Lieselotte Litzius Applicants / Respondents - and - Mike Terrigno and Michele De Cesare Applicants / Respondent (Mike Terrigno) _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Justice M.H. Bourque _______________________________________________________ Table of Contents I. Introduction . 2 II. The Law .. 3 III. Litigation and Activity Review .. 3 A. The Terrigno, Litzius, and Uhrik Litigation . 3 B.

Other Uhrik Litigation . 5 C. Other Terrigno Litigation . 5 III. Submissions . 8 A. Terrigno Application and Argument, filed November 1, 2022 . 8 B. De Cesare Application and Argument, filed November 8, 2022 . 10

C. Uhrik and Litzius Application and Argument, filed November 9, 2022 . 11 D. Terrigno Response, filed December 20, 2022 . 13 E. Uhrik and Litzius Reply Brief, filed January 4, 2023 . 13 F. De Cesare Rebuttal, filed January 19, 2023 . 14 G. Uhrik and Litzius Rebuttal, filed January 27, 2023 . 14 IV. Analysis . 15 A. Preliminary Issues . 15 B. Uhrik and Litzius . 15 1. Preliminary Issue – Joint Treatment of Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius . 15 2. Court Access Gatekeeping of Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius . 16 C. Terrigno . 19 1. Preliminary Issue - Prior Court Access Restrictions . 19 2. Should Mr.

Terrigno be Subject to Court Access Gatekeeping? . 20 V. Conclusion . 21 I. Introduction [ 1 ] This Decision responds to reciprocal Applications by opposing parties, each of which seek that the Court impose court access gatekeeping under the Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 by what are sometimes called “vexatious litigant orders”. This matter first arrived before me on October 11, 2022, in Chambers. At that point, a number of preliminary steps were taken to organize this proceeding in a Decision reported as Uhrik v Terrigno , 2022 ABKB 673 [ Uhrik v Terrigno #1 ].

Chief among these steps were that these Applications would be conducted on a document-only basis, consistent with this Court’s usual processes when evaluating Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 applications: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 28 at paras 546-577 [ Unrau #2 ] .

In particular, the involved parties were given deadlines: November 10, 2022 – to file and serve on each other and the Minister of Justice applications, written argument, and affidavit evidence in support; December 9, 2022 – to file and serve written reply argument and affidavit evidence; and January 13, 2023 – to file and serve written rebuttals to the December 9, 2022 materials. ( Uhrik v Terrigno #1 at para 4 .) [ 2 ] Subsequently, on November 23, 2022, I extended the December 9, 2022 deadline to December 23, 2022, and the January 13, 2023 deadline to January 27, 2023 in response to issues accessing electronic documents. [ 3 ] The original Applications that led to Uhrik v Terrigno # 1 were: 1. a September 13, 2022 Application by Mike Terrigno [Mr.

Terrigno] and Michele De Cesare [Mr. De Cesare], “and/or Antoinetta Terrigno” that seeks to have Tibor Uhrik [Mr. Uhrik] and/or Lieselotte Litzius [Ms. Litzius] declared “vexatious litigants” pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1; and 2. an October 5, 2022 Application by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius seeking a range of remedies, including that Mr. Terrigno is declared a vexatious litigant, and that Mr. Terrigno, Mr. De Cesare, and Antoinette Terrigno “... be required to obtain leave before filing any further Applications and Court Actions ...”. [ 4 ] Mr. Terrigno, Mr. Uhrik, and Ms.

Litzius are self-represented litigants. Mr. De Cesare is represented by lawyer Jonathan Denis. Antoinetta Terrigno did not participate in this proceeding. II.

The Law [ 5 ] 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 .

III. Litigation and Activity Review [ 6 ] The parties to this action have extensive litigation records, including within the present dispute. Lymer dictates that if this Court imposes any prospective litigant management steps, that those steps are grounded in the past actions of the candidates for litigation gatekeeping. The litigant’s entire dispute record is relevant to whether court access restrictions are appropriate: Unrau #2 at paras 580- 581.

This Court has adopted the approach set by Stratas JA in Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at paras 35-40 , that when evaluating abusive litigants, “focused” evidence is necessary, rather than “... an encyclopedia of every last detail about the litigant’s litigation history.” Mindful of that approach, and judicial efficiency, the survey of litigation activity below is not exhaustive, but instead examines information that is relevant to the issues in play when evaluating what steps, if any, are appropriate in response to the Applications. A.

The Terrigno, Litzius, and Uhrik Litigation [ 7 ] I will not explore the details of the litigation between Mr. Terrigno, Ms. Litzius, and Mr. Uhrik, because that is not the subject of this Decision. The broad context is that Mr. Terrigno’s mother, Antonietta Terrigno, obtained a judgment against Mr. Uhrik for $29,305. Mr. Uhrik transferred his interest in a condominium to Ms. Litzius. Mr. Terrigno became involved when his mother assigned her judgment to Mr. Terrigno. What followed were attempts to assert and collect debts. During this litigation, Mr. Uhrik has been the active court participant, with Ms.

Litzius adopting Mr. Uhrik’s steps, to the degree she is in any way involved. [ 8 ] The Alberta Court of Appeal has provided a comprehensive review of litigation steps of the various actions that relate to this dispute up to December 2021 in Bank of Nova Scotia v Ellentee Consulting Inc (Wolford) , 2021 ABCA 404 , Appendix A. That index includes 115 litigation steps in five Alberta Court of King’s Bench proceedings and associated Alberta Court of Appeal appeals.

In that Decision at paras 49-50, the Alberta Court of Appeal sharply criticized the overall conduct of this litigation: ... [the Alberta Court of Appeal] questions whether the approach of any of the parties is an effective use of judicial resources let alone an effective use of their own time and energy. It would appear that the different actions have enabled the parties to wander into irrelevant issues and blend them together in a manner that further confuses their relationship making it almost impossible to disentangle. ...

The Court is also troubled by the inability of Terrigno, as enforcement creditor, to explain the progression of the various distribution documents and to speak accurately about what was collected and distributed to whom. This should not be that difficult to reconcile ... the record reflects a serious and thoughtless squandering of the Courts’ valuable and limited resources by these parties that should be discouraged. [ 9 ] During the many litigation steps in this process, Court decision-makers have made unfavourable findings against both Mr. Terrigno and Mr. Uhrik.

For example, in Terrigno v Litzius , 2018 ABQB 602 , Hollins J rejected all of Mr. Terrigno’s applications and: 1. questioned the motivation of Mr. Terrigno in buying up debt where no equity is available (para 18); 2. criticized Mr. Terrigno’s conduct (para 26), concluding: ... Suffice it to say that Mike Terrigno’s language in that email can leave no doubt as to his willingness, if not his intention, to engage in improper and abusive communication of a type that would likely see a lawyer reported to the Law Society.

Although Mike Terrigno advised in argument that he has a legal education, he is not a lawyer and is not bound by the Code of Professional Conduct. 3. observed Mr. Terrigno had disclosed privileged communications (para 34); and 4. concluded Mr. Terrigno had exhibited “disruptive behaviours”, such as interfering in a cross-examination, so “[t]hings erupted”, and the process was aborted and never resumed (para 39). [ 10 ] When that decision was appealed, the appeal was dismissed, and Justice Hollins’ evaluation of Mr.

Terrigno’s bad litigation conduct and abusive communications was accepted: Terrigno v Litzius , 2019 ABCA 100 at paras 20-25 . Similarly, in Bank of Nova Scotia v Ellentee Consulting Inc (Wolford) , 2021 ABCA 156 at paras 6-7 , Rowbotham JA accepted that Mr. Terrigno had engaged in threats against Mr. Uhrik’s former counsel that led to police investigations. [ 11 ] In parallel, Crighton JA in Uhrik v Terrigno , 2023 ABCA 4 concluded that Mr. Uhrik is deliberately ignoring court decisions in relation to information disclosure. He had no basis for an appeal because Mr.

Uhrik was raising new, unargued issues (para 3) and that his appeal was a collateral attack (para 4). Mr. Uhrik now has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Uhrik v Terrigno (13 March 2023), Ottawa 40648 (SCC). [ 12 ] Mr. Uhrik on January 31, 2023 made a further application that attempted to impose multiple litigation management steps and terminate “all Applications by Mike Terrigno, Mr. Cease or his privies filed or to be filed” [sic] that was adjourned by Dilts J because Mr. Uhrik already had this current application underway. At that hearing, Justice Dilts imposed a strict deadline on Mr.

Uhrik to disclose information, or he would be found in contempt of court. Mr. Uhrik has now appealed that to the Alberta Court of Appeal: Uhrik v Terrigno , Calgary 2301-0054AC (Alta CA). Mr. Urhik was subsequently then found in contempt of court by Justice Feasby on March 6, 2023, and ordered to pay costs of $1,000. B. Other Uhrik Litigation [ 13 ] Mr. Uhrik has been involved in other problematic litigation. In Condominium Corporation No 0213865 v Uhrik , 2014 ABQB 478 , Mr. Uhrik was in a dispute with his condominium corporation over expenses resulting from repairs.

Master Robertson granted judgment and foreclosure for the condominium corporation, and summarily dismissed Mr. Uhrik’s counterclaim on multiple bases:

1. “n o meaningful evidence here that anything is required for trial on the counterclaim” (para 52); 2. Mr. Uhrik had advanced abusive bald, unsubstantiated allegations of defamation and other injuries, in breach of Rule 13.78(f) (paras 21-22, 33); 3. Mr. Uhrik admitted his rejection of the repair assessment and the resulting expenses had no basis (para 30); and 4. Mr. Uhrik had advanced irrelevant arguments (paras 38-39). [ 14 ] Master Robertson also observed that Mr. Uhrik had little basis to complain about litigation delay, when Mr.

Uhrik was, himself, causing longer delays and not advancing his counterclaim in a timely manner (para 41). C. Other Terrigno Litigation [ 15 ] Mr. Terrigno has a very lengthy record of litigation activity that dates back over a decade. Some of his matters include problematic conduct. The first reported judgment where Mr. Terrigno was involved is Peace Hills General Insurance v Terrigno , 2009 ABPC 203 , where an insurer sought to recover damages the insurer had paid after Mr. Terrigno, then a law student, was in an automobile collision driving a Mercedes owned by his parents. Mr.

Terrigno was explicitly prohibited by contract from operating that vehicle. Furthermore, Mr. Terrigno’s licence was suspended. O’Ferrall PCJ, as he then was, at paras 46-47 made negative findings concerning Mr. Terrigno’s claims that Mr. Terrigno was unaware of his licence suspension after Mr. Terrigno did not attend court: ... As a law student, he ought to have known that if he didn’t contest the charge, he would be fined, and that if he didn’t pay the fine, his licence would be suspended. It is the law in Ontario. And it’s also the law in Alberta. [ 16 ] Subsequently, Mr.

Terrigno completed his studies and was enrolled as an articling student in Alberta. Mr. Terrigno became the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society of Alberta: Law Society of Alberta v Terrigno , 2010 ABLS 8 [ LSA v Terrigno #1 ]; Law Society of Alberta v Terrigno , 2014 ABLS 59 [ LSA v Terrigno #2 ]. During these proceedings, the Hearing Committee made many negative findings, including: • inappropriate in-court conduct, that the hearing judge characterized as actions typical of a self-represented litigant, rather than a legal professional, and that Mr.

Terrigno was ordered to leave the courtroom ( LSA v Terrigno #1 at paras 12-20, 107 ); • Mr. Terrigno falsely representing to Calgary Police Service officers that he is a lawyer during a confrontation that led law enforcement to summon assistance to manage Mr. Terrigno ( LSA v Terrigno #1 at paras 21-42, 120 ); • Mr. Terrigno’s objectivity was sufficiently impaired that he was not an appropriate litigation representative, and should be sanctioned for that ( LSA v Terrigno #1 at paras 127-149 ); and • Mr.

Terrigno gave evidence of a non-existent debt to provide an advantage to a divorcing husband, was found to not be a credible witness, and Mr. Terrigno’s claims “defied logic” ( LSA v Terrigno #2 at paras 14-17 ). [ 17 ] Mr. Terrigno was also convicted of obstruction of Calgary Police Service officers ( R v Terrigno , 2008 ABPC 240 ) in relation to the confrontation scenario discussed in LSA v Terrigno #1 . That led to a 90-day conditional sentence: R v Terrigno , 2009 ABPC 29 , however this criminal prosecution was overturned on a

summary conviction appeal, and Mr. Terrigno was acquitted during the subsequent re-trial: R v Terrigno , 2011 ABPC 166 . The LSA reviewed these four Decisions and concluded the findings of the Judges established serious misconduct by Mr. Terrigno, ordered payment of a $24,369.26 penalty, but permitted Mr. Terrigno continue his articles: Law Society of Alberta v Terrigno , 2013 ABLS 14 . [ 18 ] Mr.

Terrigno never completed the process to be admitted to the Law Society of Alberta and is not a certified lawyer: LSA v Terrigno #2 . [ 19 ] In the interests of judicial economy, and pursuant to the instruction of Stratas JA in Canada v Olumide , I will only provide an overview of Mr. Terrigno’s litigation activities in response to a sophisticated “Ponzi scheme” conducted by Arnold Breitkreutz, Susan Way, Base Finance Ltd., and Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd. This fraud is described in the Alberta Securities Commission decision reported as Re Breitkreutz , 2019 ABASC 38 .

Briefly, numerous investors, many of whom were senior citizens, invested very sizable funds believing these were in relation to low-risk real properties. Instead, the funds were invested and lost in speculative Texas oil investments. The central figure in the Ponzi scheme was subsequently convicted of fraud ( R v Breitkreutz , 2022 ABQB 449 ) and sentenced to ten years in prison ( R v Breitkreutz , 2022 ABQB 559 ). [ 20 ] Mr. Terrigno and his Easy Loan Corporation were one of the investors defrauded in this scheme.

In the civil proceedings that have followed, a Receiver was appointed to recover funds and assets to reimburse the defrauded persons. Much litigation has followed, and Mr. Terrigno and his corporation are active participants. They were assigned certain debtors’ claims in 2020: Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd , 2020 ABQB 568 . During this litigation negative findings were made about Mr. Terrigno and his conduct, which include: • Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd , 2019 ABQB 273 - Mr.

Terrigno (self-represented) attempted to act as a prohibited unauthorized representative for his father. Romaine J concluded that the timing of litigation steps was suspect, and that a groundless conflict of interest was alleged for collateral purposes, to trigger adjournment of an application by the Receiver. Mr. Terrigno’s litigation misconduct warranted solicitor-client costs. • Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage and Investments Ltd , 2020 ABQB 109 - Mr. Terrigno and others sued the Receiver but were ordered to pay $100,000 in security for costs. Romaine J concluded Mr.

Terrigno was demanding the Receiver engage in hopeless litigation, Mr. Terrigno was not paying costs awards, even when those costs were the result of a consent order. Mr. Terrigno’s very

litigious conduct had caused waste and reduced the potential returns for all creditors of the Breitkreutz fraud. • Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd , 2020 ABQB 568 - Romaine J again observed that this receivership has been expensive due to Mr. Terrigno’s pointless litigation: “It is clear from the record that the Receiver and its counsel have been subject to abusive tactics from Mr.

Terrigno, including threatening and defamatory emails.” • Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd , 2022 ABQB 315 - while Sulyma J generally confirmed the fraudsters’ liability, she rejected general, aggravated, and punitive damages claimed by Mr. Terrigno as having no legal basis. • Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd , 2022 ABKB 803 – Mr. Terrigno’s potential cost award for a partially successful trust application was negatively affected by Mr. Terrigno’s abusive and threatening conduct. [ 21 ] Nevertheless, Mr. Terrigno also played a key positive role in this litigation.

In 2015 Mr. Terrigno was the individual who first detected the Ponzi scheme, moved rapidly to commence litigation, and successfully applied to this Court for appointment of a Receiver: Easy Loan Corporation v Base Mortgage & Investments Ltd , 2022 ABKB 803 at paras 2 , 74. Thus, Mr. Terrigno’s engagement and activities had both positive and negative consequences for this litigation. [ 22 ] A related lawsuit is described in Terrigno v Fox , 2022 ABQB 199 . Mr. Terrigno alleged the defendant spouses were participants in the Breitkreutz Ponzi scheme. In a confrontation at the Calgary Courts Centre, Mr.

Terrigno is alleged to have threatened to kill Mr. Fox. That led to a police complaint and correspondence to judges. Mr. Terrigno sued, saying that was defamation. Here, the dispute is over whether a recording by Mr. Terrigno of the initial 2016 confrontation was properly disclosed during civil litigation. Master Prowse (as he then was) concluded: 1. Mr. Terrigno had deliberately not disclosed the audio record, so that audio record was prohibited from being used in this lawsuit (paras 16-17), and 2. Mr.

Terrigno breached his duty of confidentiality in relation to questioning transcripts by disclosing those to law enforcement, which warranted a $5,000 penalty (paras 24-25). [ 23 ] Subsequently, in Terrigno v Fox , 2023 ABKB 89 , Jones J rejected that Mr. Terrigno was an uninformed self-represented litigant, and that did not excuse Mr. Terrigno’s misconduct. This litigation is currently under appeal: Terrigno v Fox , Calgary 2301 005AC (Alta CA). [ 24 ] Other litigation by Mr. Terrigno does not exhibit problematic conduct, though sometimes matters are procedurally complicated.

Examples include: • Terrigno v Tahn , Calgary 1601 12453 (Alta KB) – in this debt collection proceeding Hall J in Terrigno v Tahn , 2019 ABQB 549 rejected that Mr. Terrigno is an “officious intermeddler” (para 27), and that Mr. Terrigno engaged in improper conduct based in personal animosity (para 28). • Terrigno v Butzner , Calgary 1701 02748 (Alta KB) – here Mr. Terrigno and his corporation sued the Defendant for defamation. Mr. Terrigno’s reported Decisions show that Mr. Terrigno was partially successful in obtaining a late amendment to his pleadings: Terrigno v Butzner , 2020 ABQB 230 . Mr.

Terrigno, as a self-represented litigant, appealed, and the Alberta Court of Appeal granted his appeal to expand the pleading amendments beyond those authorized in the trial court: Terrigno v Butzner , 2021 ABCA 18 . Subsequently, the Alberta Court of Appeal granted an application by Mr. Terrigno to maintain confidentiality in certain documents: Terrigno v Butzner , 2022 ABCA 275 . • Terrigno Investments Inc v Farrell , Calgary 1701 06436 (Alta KB) - Mr. Terrigno and his parents and brother sued a former Calgary City Councillor, Druh Farrell, alleging defamation.

The Court permitted amendments to pleadings while Mr. Terrigno operated as a self-represented litigant: Terrigno Investments Inc v Farrell , 2021 ABQB 311 . Subsequently, I rejected an application by Mr. Terrigno and his family that aspects of this litigation were moot, based on

interpretation of legislation, and in recognition of the important public interest aspects of the Terrignos’ litigation: Terrigno v Farrell , 2023 ABKB 170 . • Terrigno v Calgary (City) , Calgary 2001 01854 (Alta KB) – Mr. Terrigno successfully challenged the sub-delegation of authority to Calgary’s City Solicitor. In this Decision Jeffrey J concluded: 1) Mr. Terrigno had public interest standing to bring this Action, 2) that Mr. Terrigno’s

interpretation of the Municipal Government Act , RSA 2000, c M-26 , and its interplay with Calgary bylaws and directions, was correct, and 3) declared a City of Calgary resolution ultra vires : Terrigno v Calgary (City) , 2021 ABQB 41 . III. Submissions [ 25 ] The Court received submissions pursuant to Uhrik v Terrigno #1 . These are summarized in chronological order. A. Terrigno Application and Argument, filed November 1, 2022 [ 26 ] Mr. Terrigno filed an application seeking that Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius are subject to court access gatekeeping that would require Mr. Uhrik and/or Ms.

Litzius obtain leave prior to initiating any proceeding against Mr. Terrigno, and ordering security for costs for any such proceeding. However, in Mr. Terrigno’s argument he seeks a broader remedy, that court access gatekeeping is also imposed against Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius in relation to actions that name Michele De Cesare and Antoinetta Terrigno. [ 27 ] Mr. Terrigno also sought: 1. an order for security for costs against Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius in relation to the current Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application

by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius; 2. an order expunging certain court filings; and 3. Heightened Costs. Mr. Terrigno says that security for costs is appropriate since Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have previously made two abandoned Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Applications. Mr. Terrigno also argues certain documents filed with the Court should be expunged because they were (allegedly) drafted by lawyer Gabor Zinner after Mr. Zinner was disqualified from representing Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius. [ 28 ] Mr. Terrigno describes Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius as “... professional litigants and professional debtors ...”.

He describes preceding litigation dating from 2013 that involves Mr. Terrigno’s family members. Mr. Terrigno took over the litigation since he is legally trained and his mother is outside Calgary. Mr. Terrigno also purchased other debts owed by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius, and now holds around $122,000 in debt judgments. [ 29 ] Mr. Terrigno reviews the tactics he says are employed by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius to frustrate and derail his collection of court ordered debts, including: 1. refusing to comply with court orders, and the Rules of Court , which has led to contempt proceedings against both Mr. Uhrik and Ms.

Litzius; 2. Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius swearing false affidavits, and fabricating trust arrangements; 2. aggressive and hopeless applications and appeals; 3. re-litigation of settled issues; and 4. never paying unfavourable costs ordered by Alberta courts. This litigation misconduct satisfies multiple Judicature Act s 23(2) vexatious proceeding indicia. These activities also impose financial costs on Mr. Terrigno, which Mr. Terrigno says is deliberate, a way to inflict expense, and to frustrate Mr. Terrigno’s collection of the outstanding debts. [ 30 ] Mr.

Terrigno says that following the principles in Chutskoff v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 and Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 , Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius are proper targets for a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 order. Mr. Terrigno argues that the issue of whether or not Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius engage in litigation misconduct that satisfies the criteria for court access gatekeeping is not even in dispute, since the Alberta Court of Appeal in Bank of Nova Scotia v Ellentee Consulting Inc (Wolford) has already been found Mr. Uhrik and Ms.

Litzius have made bald unsubstantiated allegations, and conducted applications and appeals with no evidence whatsoever in support of their claims. Mr. Terrigno observes that those appeals and arguments are inexplicable, if what Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius argue is truly correct. [ 31 ] Similarly, Mr. Terrigno observes how Applications Judge Farrington in his July 28, 2022 Endorsement concluded that no basis exists for Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius to resist judgment enforcement, and their current litigation is nothing more than a collateral attack against much prior and concluded litigation. [ 32 ] Mr.

Terrigno argues many steps taken by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius in the current litigation have no prospect for success, particularly a series of Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 applications, that Mr. Terrigno is a vexatious litigant, which were then abandoned. Mr. Terrigno points to a frivolous Certificate of Lis Pendens registered against a property formerly owned by Mr. Uhrik, which was discharged as baseless by Application Judge Farrington on July 7, 2022. [ 33 ] Another indication of bad litigation conduct is Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have not paid unfavourable cost awards to both Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare.

That, Mr. Terrigno states, is part of a broader pattern where Alberta Courts have confirmed Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have ignored court orders and instructions, which has led, for example, that Ms. Litzius was found in contempt of court for failing to provide court-ordered documentation. Mr. Terrigno also reviews the multiple unsuccessful appeals that have occurred in the Terrigno and De Cesare versus Uhrik and Litzius litigation, that, as noted above, continue to the present. [ 34 ] Mr. Terrigno alleges that Mr. Uhrik and Ms.

Litzius are clandestinely employing the services of lawyer Gabor Zinner, who was disqualified from representing Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius by Neufeld J on November 16, 2018. Mr. Terrigno says this is very serious misconduct, given Mr. Zinner and Mr. Terrigno have an extended history during Mr. Terrigno’s period as a Student at Law, and that Mr. Zinner was the Terrigno family lawyer for years. [ 35 ] If there was any question of the motivation of the persons Mr. Terrigno says should be subject to court access gatekeeping, that is clarified by an email dated August 20, 2021 from Mr. Uhrik to Mr.

Terrigno and his brother that reads: Lilo and I have had enough of you. You have ruined our lives. You took away our condo. We are going to continue to file frivolous suits against you in court forever. Have fun paying your fancy lawyers $500.00 an hour while we waste your money. There is nothing you can do to us. You are a piece of shit! [ 36 ] Given the record of Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius, Mr. Terrigno submits this Court should impose Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access gatekeeping, and award him full indemnity or elevated costs for this Application. B.

De Cesare Application and Argument, filed November 8, 2022 [ 37 ] Mr. De Cesare filed an Application seeking that Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius are declared “vexatious litigants” and, pursuant to

Judicature Act ss 23-23.1, they are required to obtain leave prior to “... filing any Statement of Claim, Originating Application, Application, or any other relief ...” against Mr. Terrigno, Mr. De Cesare, and Antonietta Terrigno. Mr. De Cesare adopts Mr. Terrigno’s argument and evidence, but also describes his own litigation interactions with Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius. [ 38 ] Mr. De Cesare’s arguments center on litigation to collect a debt of over $38,726.28 from Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius, and how Mr. Uhrik and Ms.

Litzius have attempted to frustrate that process, including persistently: 1. not paying court-ordered awards and eight costs awards that total $10,750; 2. swearing false affidavits; 3. defying Court orders, which have resulted in contempt awards; 4. incurring expenses to engage in hopeless litigation, but claiming to be impecunious; and 5. conducting unsuccessful appeals. [ 39 ] Counsel for Mr.

De Cesare argues that satisfies multiple indicia of abusive litigation identified in Judicature Act s 23(2), including re-litigation of issues, hopeless proceedings, proceedings conducted for an improper purpose, not paying costs, court awards, and improper courtroom conduct. Specifically, Mr. De Cesare in supporting affidavits points to the numerous cost awards, contempt findings, and unsuccessful appeals to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Mr. De Cesare stresses that the relevant Alberta Court of Appeal proceedings were not merely unsuccessful, but exhibit questionable characteristics, such as Ms.

Litzius not pursuing the Litzius v Preferred Credit Resources Limited , (Calgary) 2101 0321AC (Alta CA) appeal in a timely manner so that it was struck out, and arguing that Mr. Uhrik’s Uhrik v Terrigno , (Calgary) 2201 0158AC (Alta CA) appeal had no valid basis, which is exactly what Crighton J subsequently concluded in Uhrik v Terrigno , 2023 ABCA 4 . [ 40 ] Mr. De Cesare submits that Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius’s abusive conduct is focussed on the debt recovery litigation and is intended to exhaust his and Mr. Terrigno’s collection efforts.

Because of that, a fair and reasonable gatekeeping arrangement would focus on responding to that specific bad conduct: imposing leave requirements on future litigation by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius directed against Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare. C. Uhrik and Litzius Application and Argument, filed November 9, 2022 [ 41 ] Mr. Uhrik in his Application seeks that Mr. Terrigno is declared a vexatious litigant, found in contempt of an April 3, 2018 order of Justice Hollins, and to revive and

schedule a further “Vexatious Application” filed and adjourned in 2018. This filing is identified to be heard “... Before the Honourable Justice Hollins.” Mr. Uhrik then summarizes the litigation to date, stressing that Mr. Terrigno was not originally a party to these proceedings, but, instead, acquired the debt collection rights. [ 42 ] Mr. Terrigno’s Application details alleged events during questioning in 2018, that led to undertakings by Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius. That climaxes in allegations that Mr. Terrigno threatened to file lawsuits against multiple persons and to disqualify Mr. Uhrik’s and Ms.

Litzius’ lawyer. That caused losses to a business. Ms. Litzius’ residence, a condominium, was sold by court-ordered sale. Mr. Uhrik then itemizes legal actions that he calls “frivolous Applications”. The Application document thus does not substantively address litigation misconduct and management for Mr. Terrigno. [ 43 ] That content is in Mr. Uhrik’s 18-page “Argument To Declare Mike Terrigno a Vexatious Litigant”. This document reviews legislation and common law principles applied to determine whether court access restrictions should be applied to an abusive litigant. Mr. Uhrik concludes that Mr.

Terrigno has already been declared a vexatious litigant by the Alberta Court of Appeal in relation to litigation against Monica Kretchmer. Mr. Uhrik continues to identify alleged abusive litigation misconduct by Mr. Terrigno, which includes: • Mr. Terrigno being ordered out of a courtroom for bad conduct; • Mr. Terrigno being sanctioned by the LSA for abusive and inappropriate in-courtroom and litigation conduct; • Mr. Terrigno being convicted of obstruction of peace officers ( R v Terrigno , 2008 ABPC 240 ) (I note that the preceding review of Mr.

Terrigno’s litigation record shows that conviction: 1) was appealed, 2) then Mr. Terrigno was acquitted on retrial); • Judges have concluded that Mr. Terrigno exhibits “behavioural pathology” (this claim also relies on an appealed judgment ( R v Terrigno , 2009 ABPC 29 )), and the LSA has drawn similar conclusions and fined Mr. Terrigno on that basis; • Mr. Terrigno engages in inappropriate and threatening language in his professional and litigation activities; • Mr.

Terrigno has engaged in political litigation with the objective to intimidate public officials, referencing the Terrigno v Butzner , Calgary 1701 02748 (Alta KB) and Terrigno Investments Inc v Farrell , Calgary 1701 06436 (Alta KB) litigation (I have above commented this litigation does not exhibit abusive aspects); • that Mr. Terrigno sought a substitutional service order, after an earlier order had directed service on Mr. Uhrik’s and Ms. Litzius’s agent; • that Mr.

Terrigno’s conduct during cross-examination on June 12, 2018, subsequent events to compel undertakings, and a cancelled appearance, represent “[p]ersistently bringing and escalating proceedings for improper purposes”; • that Mr. Terrigno purchasing and pursuing enforcement of judgment debts is “busybody” litigation that enforces the rights of unrelated third parties, and is intended to harass Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius; and

• Mr. Terrigno failed to honour court-ordered obligations by not arranging court dates and to

schedule cross-examination on affidavits. [ 44 ] Mr. Uhrik draws parallels between Mr. Terrigno and the abusive litigant who was made subject to court access restrictions in Hill v Bundon , 2018 ABQB 506 . Each are legally trained. Mr. Uhrik observes that Mr. Terrigno is a sophisticated person whose education and business activities permit him to exploit court processes and engage in abusive and “sharp” practices. However, as a non- lawyer, Mr. Terrigno is not limited by professional obligations and regulation by the LSA.

Alleged evidence for that includes: • failure to notify that court dates had been changed; • not serving court filings on Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius; • engaging in “litigation blackmail” by demanding amounts greater than court judgments; and • threats to expand litigation to other individuals, making Mr. Terrigno a “litigation terrorist”. [ 45 ] Given this range of problematic conduct, Mr. Uhrik concludes that Mr. Terrigno should be subject to broad and strict litigation management steps, in parallel to Hill v Bundon , including a leave requirement, and mandatory lawyer representation. Mr. Uhrik says he and Ms.

Litzius should receive full indemnity costs. D. Terrigno Response, filed December 20, 2022 [ 46 ] Mr. Terrigno in his written Response complains that this is the third time he has responded to the same application and arguments. He stresses that earlier materials were prepared “... by disqualified lawyer, Gabor Zinner ...”, and that no new affidavit material has been presented. It is unfair to Mr. Terrigno to have to respond to this application and materials. Mr. Terrigno concludes the current Application has no merit because in 2018 Justice Neufeld came to that conclusion. [ 47 ] As for Mr.

Terrigno’s conduct, he stresses he is a bona fide judgment creditor who has an established record of good litigation conduct: 1. No adverse findings have been made against Mr. Terrigno, and, instead, he has been complemented on his civility. 2. None of the related litigation has resulted in costs against Mr. Terrigno, except for an appeal that was conducted by a lawyer. 3. He did not conduct litigation against the Applicants, but was assigned judgments that he is enforcing. 4. Mr.

Terrigno is falsely alleged to have been “... found to be a vexatious litigant ...”, and, if he was such because of a 2012 Order of the Alberta Court of Appeal, then that was unfairly imposed without notice and representation, as was identified in Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 ABQB 237 at para 98 . At best, this claim about him being subject to litigation gatekeeping is misleading. 5. Mr. Terrigno also points to his reasonable and fair conduct. For example, though he is legally authorized to take collection steps since 2019, he has not done so. [ 48 ] Mr.

Terrigno rejects the contempt of court allegation advanced against him. He says there is no evidence to support these bald claims, and, in any case, that allegation was dismissed by Applications Judge Farrington. [ 49 ] Mr. Terrigno denies he is a vexatious litigant. He describes those events identified by Mr. Uhrik as proof of Mr. Terrigno’s misconduct is, instead, just a “colourful past”, in “historically unrelated matters” unconnected to his current litigation. While the Applicants may “... dig up as much dirt as they can ...”, that is not evidence. Mr.

Terrigno should not be subject to the stigma and litigation restrictions sought by the Applicants. Instead, the Applicants are attempting to relitigate issues already found in Mr. Terrigno’s favour, in breach of res judicata . Citing Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 , Mr. Terrigno says since there is no bad litigation conduct by him at the present, he cannot be made subject to court access gatekeeping. [ 50 ] Mr.

Terrigno seeks costs of $10,000, which he says is warranted because the Application is ungrounded and based on false allegations, made for vengeance and retaliation, which must be paid before the Applicants initiate any new proceeding against him. E. Uhrik and Litzius Reply Brief, filed January 4, 2023 [ 51 ] This 21-page document essentially duplicates Mr. Uhrik’s November 9, 2022 filing. F. De Cesare Rebuttal, filed January 19, 2023 [ 52 ] Counsel for Mr. De Cesare observes that none of what was received by the Court from Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius relates to his client. That failure to rebut Mr.

De Cesare’s submission and materials means the Court should accept Mr. De Cesare’s application and impose court access gatekeeping on Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius, pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1. Additionally, Mr. De Cesare observes that Mr. Uhrik’s most recent appellate activities following Uhrik v Terrigno , 2023 ABCA 4 further illustrate Mr. Uhrik’s practice of: 1. attempting to re-litigate issues, including false claims that nothing is owed to Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare; 2. repeated refusal to pay costs;

3. invalid post-judgment attempts to prolong the Alberta Court of Appeal proceedings by rejecting the appeal reasoning and outcome, demanding a corrigendum or additions to the Court’s judgment, and that the appeal is re-argued; and 4. now threatening an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 53 ] Mr. Uhrik appears to have taken that last step because on March 13, 2023 Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius filed a leave to appeal application with the Supreme Court of Canada: Uhrik v Terrigno (13 March 2023), Ottawa 40648 (SCC). G. Uhrik and Litzius Rebuttal, filed January 27, 2023 [ 54 ] Mr. Uhrik submitted the Rebuttal.

He alleges Mr. De Cesare and his lawyer have acquiesced and/or cooperated with Mr. Terrigno’s abusive conduct. Mr. Uhrik says Mr. Terrigno is “... the mastermind behind the pollution of Application after application abusing the court process ...” [sic], but all these bad actors have engaged in “... unscrupulous behaviors and conduct.” and alleges fiscal improprieties by these individuals. [ 55 ] Mr. Uhrik then moves on to recapitulate points in his original submission concerning Mr.

Terrigno, such as the alleged existing vexatious litigant order, bad courtroom conduct, LSA disciplinary proceedings, and negative judicial determinations and declarations. In relation to the current dispute, Mr. Uhrik points to factors that include improper litigation steps, abusive conduct during questioning, busybody litigation, failure to cooperate with the Court and litigation processes, and “sharp practice”. [ 56 ] Mr. Uhrik concludes that court access restrictions are required for Mr. Terrigno not only to protect himself and Ms. Litzius, but officers of the court, and the public as a whole.

The Court should also declare that Mr. Terrigno has defamed Ms. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius, “... for personal gain and/or some form of benefit” “... with the right to assessment of damages once the Action(

s) are filed and served ...”. Mr. Uhrik says that in addition to court access gatekeeping, Mr. Terrigno should be required to retain a lawyer for any future proceedings, and Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius should receive full indemnity costs. IV. Analysis A. Preliminary Issues [ 57 ] Prior to evaluating the reciprocal Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Applications, I will address a number of preliminary issues. First, Mr. Terrigno has argued that Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius’ application is invalid because the Application was served by email.

I reject that argument, since the email address, “jsg.serviceshmg@gov.ab.ca”, is the designated email service address for the Government of Alberta. [ 58 ] Mr. Terrigno has also sought what might be called a pre-emptive security for costs requirement in relation to Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius’s Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application. There is no point to that since I already have set the litigation process in Uhrik v Terrigno #1 at para 4 .

I might entertain a security for costs order, if that were appropriate, as an additional litigation management step, after this Decision on court access gatekeeping is completed. [ 59 ] I also reject Mr. Terrigno’s request that certain court filings be expunged because a certain lawyer might have been involved in their preparation. Mr. Terrigno has not provided either a factual or legal basis for why this step should occur. I also decline to take that step since what Mr. Terrigno alleges is grounded on the inference that only a lawyer could have produced certain documents, versus a self-represented litigant.

I believe I may take judicial notice that self-represented litigants exhibit a very broad range of ability in legal proceedings. [ 60 ] Mr. Uhrik has also sought several steps that I will not address. First, Mr. Uhrik has sought that the Court resume a separate Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application from November 2018. That is a duplicative process to his current November 9, 2023 Application, that I reject. Second, Mr. Uhrik seeks that the Court find Mr. Terrigno in contempt of an April 3, 2018 order of Hollins J. That was not part of the process set up in Uhrik v Terrigno #1 , and, therefore, if Mr.

Uhrik wishes to pursue that claim, he may do so at a later point, subject to whatever court access gatekeeping that is imposed on him. [ 61 ] A further general point is that some of the legal authorities relied upon by the parties no longer accurately reflect the law in Alberta on the potential scope, trigger circumstances, and procedures applied when evaluating potential court access gatekeeping.

In Lymer , the Alberta Court of Appeal narrowed both the bases for judicial intervention in response to abusive litigation misconduct, and rejected that the threshold for intervention operates from a prospective response basis. Instead, a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application is a historical review of prior abusive litigation conduct. For clarity, I, therefore, do not apply, for example, the tests developed in Chutskoff v Bonora , and Hok v Alberta , but rather the post- Lymer approach as summarized above in

Part II of this Decision. Similarly, I will not comment further on other remedies sought by the litigants, such as requirements to pay to continue litigation, or to impose a mandatory requirement to be represented by counsel, since these steps were rejected and prohibited in Lymer . B. Uhrik and Litzius 1. Preliminary Issue – Joint Treatment of Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius [ 62 ] Mr. Uhrik has been and continues to be the active party in the Uhrik and Litzius duo. While Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have been represented in the past (e.g., Terrigno v Litzius , 2019 ABCA 100 ), more recently each has self-represented.

All evidence I received is that Mr. Uhrik is making court submissions and directing the relevant litigation. [ 63 ] I conclude that in the analysis that follows, Ms. Litzius should be treated as a litigation adjunct or ally to Mr. Uhrik, who is the active problematic litigant. As such, the following analysis treats both Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius as a single unit because, functionally,

that is how they operate, with Mr. Uhrik as the “front man” carrying both persons’ litigation. 2. Court Access Gatekeeping of Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius [ 64 ] I generally accept much of the argument and evidence of Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare. There are certain points where I conclude that the Applicants have made less credible allegations, such as Mr. Terrigno’s complaint concerning prohibited document drafting and preparation by Mr. Zinner. However, the overwhelming pattern that emerges from the litigation record presented by Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare is that Mr.

Uhrik, as the “front man” for himself and Ms. Litzius, has engaged in persistent and repeated litigation misconduct that is intended to frustrate court and litigant steps, to inflict unnecessary and costly processes within the debt collection actions, and, broadly, that ignores court authority and the Alberta Rules of Court . Furthermore, I am bound by findings of abusive litigation conduct made by the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 65 ] Furthermore, Mr. Uhrik has a history of earlier abusive litigation. Condominium Corporation No 0213865 v Uhrik shows that Mr.

Uhrik has previously used a parallel set of strategies to frustrate litigation, then counterattack by improper, baseless legal proceedings. [ 66 ] In this context some form of indefinite litigant gatekeeping is appropriate. Case management cannot operate where litigants simply do not pay any attention to this Court’s instructions and orders. The record clearly establishes that Mr. Uhrik does what he wants, and then barrages opposing parties and the Court with repetitious paperwork, applications, demands, and complaints. [ 67 ] The remaining question is the appropriate scope for court access gatekeeping. Mr.

Terrigno’s and Mr. De Cesare’s Applications seek an order that imposes gatekeeping for litigation that involves a few named persons. I conclude a broader order is appropriate for a number of reasons: 1. Mr. Uhrik has demonstrated that he is a creative litigant who will counterattack so as to expand disputes. He uses novel and unusual steps to initiate and continue litigation. There are a range of related corporations and former creditors who are plausible targets for additional collateral litigation by Mr. Uhrik. They should be shielded given Mr. Uhrik’s pattern of repeated, persistent abusive litigation. 2. Mr.

Uhrik has said he wants litigation steps against counsel for Mr. De Cesare, who he asserts is a wrongdoer and pawn of Mr. Terrigno. That means Mr. Uhrik will plausibly expand his litigation and complaints to target lawyers and other professional agents. 3. Mr. Uhrik has engaged in the same kind of persistent abusive litigation conduct in entirely unrelated lawsuits. Put another way, Mr.

Uhrik’s bad litigation patterns are not restricted solely to the Terrigno and Uhrik dispute. [ 68 ] In Unrau #2 , Rooke ACJ stressed at paras 778-799 that court access gatekeeping orders must be explicit, and enforceable by the Clerk of the Court. Similarly, MacDonald CJNS in Tupper v Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2015 NSCA 92 concluded at paras 51-56 that, when designing prospective court access restrictions, the court should issue a “blanket restraint” to avoid forcing court staff “... to make the call as to whether a proposed new matter is subject to the restraining order.” Given Mr.

Uhrik’s developing and persistent, repeated abusive conduct, and the factors reviewed above, I conclude that the only appropriate step to manage Mr. Uhrik, and his adjunct Ms. Litzius, is global court access gatekeeping for the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. [ 69 ] I, therefore, declare that Tibor Uhrik and Lieselotte Litzius are “vexatious litigants”, and should be subject to the court access gatekeeping, pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1: 1.

Tibor Uhrik and Lieselotte Litzius are 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 or her 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 their designate; 2.

To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Tibor Uhrik and/or Lieselotte Litzius must first submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or their designate. If such an application is made: (

i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or their 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 Tibor Uhrik’s and Lieselotte Litzius’s access to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta;

b) Attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Tibor Uhrik and/or Lieselotte Litzius 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 Tibor Uhrik and/or Lieselotte Litzius have ever previously sued some or all of the defendants or respondents 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 their designate, may:

a) Require the application 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 Tibor Uhrik and/or Lieselotte Litzius unless: (

i) Tibor Uhrik and/or Lieselotte Litzius are named as defendants or respondents 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, Tibor Uhrik and/or Lieselotte Litzius have been granted leave to take that step by the Court. [ 70 ] As indicated above, I will not at this point evaluate whether a security for costs order should also be imposed on Mr. Uhrik’s and Ms. Litzius’s litigation.

That is properly a subject for a further application, if so desired, taking into account the new litigation and litigant management steps that have been imposed in this Decision. [ 71 ] Mr. Terrigno in his December 20, 2022 Response also sought that any cost award against Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius must be paid as a precondition to further litigation steps.

The legal status of that remedy is unclear, since in Lymer that precondition was categorically rejected, but recently Veldhuis JA, who was on the Lymer panel, in Rana v Rana , 2023 ABCA 112 granted an order “... to prohibit further applications in the Court of Appeal unless all Court of Appeal cost awards in the amount of $7,432.00 are paid in full ...” on the basis that “... when litigants choose the public court process, they are bound by the remedies imposed by the court, including the payment of costs by the unsuccessful party to the successful party.” [ 72 ] Since Lymer was a Decision of a three-justice panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal, and Rana v Rana is a Decision of a single justice of that Court, this Court is bound by Lymer .

I therefore reject a pre-leave payment condition on Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius. C. Terrigno 1. Preliminary Issue - Prior Court Access Restrictions [ 73 ] It is well established that prior court access gatekeeping is a strong factor in support of additional litigant management that responds to abusive litigation conduct: Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at para 37 ; Hill v Bundon , 2018 ABQB 506 at para 7 ; Feeney v TD General Insurance Company , 2021 ABQB 947 , aff’d 2022 ABCA 118 . Moreau CJ in Peters v Keef , 2019 ABQB 85 at para 17 framed that principle this way: ...

When a court has already concluded that court access restrictions are necessary to manage a litigant, then that is, of itself, a very strong factor in support of additional court access restrictions that respond to additional anticipated litigation misconduct ... [Emphasis added.] As indicated above, Mr. Uhrik says this presumption applies to Mr. Terrigno. [ 74 ] On May 3, 2012, Justice O’Ferrall of the Alberta Court of Appeal issued an Order in Kretschmer v Terrigno , Calgary 1101 01112AC (Alta CA) that imposed multiple steps on Maurizio Dante Terrigno and Antonietta Terrigno, including at para 6(

a) that these persons: ... and any related family members or corporations or entities ... are prohibited from instituting any new actions by or on behalf of any other person where the issue arises from the cohabitation, marriage, separation or divorce of Maurizio Terrigno and Monica Kretschmer ... [ 75 ] This Order is, functionally, a court access gatekeeping order. The Alberta Court of Appeal subsequently ruled that step may only be made pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1: Lymer .

Recently, Antonio JA in Tican v Alamgir , 2023 ABCA 115 concluded that if a court order imposes a precondition that a person obtain leave prior to initiating or continuing litigation, then that is a “vexatious litigant order”. [ 76 ] Mike Terrigno is acknowledged to be the brother of Maurizio Terrigno, and the son of Antonietta Terrigno, so, on its face, the

May 3, 2012 Order would also apply to Mike Terrigno. Does that mean Mr. Terrigno is already a “vexatious litigant”, subject to a “vexatious litigant order”? [ 77 ] Mr. Terrigno in his Response argues the May 3, 2012 Order should not lead the Court to conclude Mr. Terrigno is subject to the presumption that prior court access gatekeeping favours expanded steps of that type to manage Mr. Terrigno’s litigation. Mr. Terrigno says he had no notice of that limitation.

He is not even named. [ 78 ] Rooke ACJ in Unrau #2 at paras 782-783 critically evaluated the May 3, 2012 Order, and observed this is an example of a “vexatious litigant order” that is too ill-defined to have meaningful effect: Here, the parties affected by the order are potentially unclear. While the issuing justice’s concern and intent is obvious, he anticipated that proxy actors may attempt to continue abusive litigation, the final result is so open-ended that the scope of the order cannot be defined. [ 79 ] I conclude that the May 3, 2012 Order does not create a strong factor in favour of Mr.

Terrigno being subject to additional court access gatekeeping. The May 3, 2012 Order is not directed at Mr. Terrigno and his litigation activity. The Order is directed against Maurizio Dante Terrigno and Antonietta Terrigno. What Justice O’Ferrall attempted to do was pre-empt proxy agents being deployed to evade litigation gatekeeping of Maurizio Dante Terrigno and Antonietta Terrigno. As Associate Chief Justice Rooke has observed, that anti-proxy step is so undefined that it cannot be given meaningful effect. 2. Should Mr.

Terrigno be Subject to Court Access Gatekeeping? [ 80 ] Pursuant to Lymer , the thresholds for this Court to impose court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 are two-fold: 1. “persistent” abusive litigation conduct that is of a kind that warrants court access gatekeeping, and 2. that no other method of litigation and litigant management will effectively address Mr. Terrigno’s (alleged) bad litigation conduct. I conclude that neither of these criteria are satisfied by Mr. Uhrik’s and Ms. Litzius’s Application. [ 81 ] First, I reject much of the abusive litigation conduct alleged by Mr.

Uhrik and Ms. Litzius. For example, they point to criminal convictions of Mr. Terrigno, but those convictions were overturned. The November 9, 2022 Argument characterizes some of Mr. Terrigno’s litigation (e.g., Terrigno v Butzner , Calgary 1701 02748 (Alta KB) and Terrigno Investments Inc v Farrell ) as abusive proceedings, with a political objective, and to intimidate public officials. I do not accept that characterization of these matters. As for whether Mr. Terrigno is a “busybody” litigant who has intruded into unrelated litigation, or that Mr.

Terrigno collaterally attacked an earlier order of the Court by obtaining a substitutional service order, this Court and the Alberta Court of Appeal have already dismissed those claims. [ 82 ] This is not to say Mr. Terrigno’s litigation record is unblemished. The litigation review above shows Mr. Terrigno has a pattern of making offensive, ill-considered statements. I note the same is at least true of Mr. Uhrik. Mr.

Terrigno has conducted litigation in what could be called an inefficient manner, or an aggressive manner, that this Court and the Alberta Court of Appeal has criticized as a misuse and waste of court and litigant resources. [ 83 ] However, this is not a consistent or predominant pattern. Alberta courts have also concluded Mr. Terrigno was an important actor in taking steps to identify and mitigate a large-scale fraud. Similarly, Mr.

Terrigno has conducted successful and important litigation. [ 84 ] I am not aware of any Alberta appellate authority that exactly defines the meaning or scope of “persistent” bad conduct that could trigger a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 order, or to what degree that “persistent” also means “consistent”. However, I can, viewing Mr. Terrigno’s litigation conduct as a whole, conclude a “persistence” threshold has not been met in Mr. Terrigno’s case. Mr. Terrigno is clearly a litigious person, however, being a highly active litigant does not make one a “vexatious litigant” (however that term may be defined). Mr.

Terrigno conducts much litigation that is procedurally and legally valid. The fact he is not as efficient as a lawyer is a characteristic shared by most self-represented litigants, and some lawyers. [ 85 ] Second, I conclude that Mr. Terrigno’s litigation is manageable by less extreme and intrusive steps than court access gatekeeping. For one, Mr. Terrigno can be subject to security for costs. Second, I conclude that Mr. Terrigno’s more problematic litigation can be mitigated by case management. Unlike Mr. Uhrik, Mr. Terrigno is responsive to court instructions. [ 86 ] I, therefore, conclude that Mr.

Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have not satisfied me, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Terrigno should be subject to a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 gatekeeping order. That said, I recommend Mr. Terrigno consider retaining counsel in his litigation proceedings. A repeating motif is that Mr. Terrigno becomes aggressive and engages in inappropriate communications. A lawyer would do much to mitigate that issue, and to better focus court processes to obtain a more efficient outcome. V. Conclusion [ 87 ] Mr. Uhrik and Ms.

Litzius are vexatious litigants who are subject to global court access restrictions before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Mr. Uhrik’s and Ms. Litzius’s Application to impose reciprocal steps on Mr. Terrigno is dismissed. [ 88 ] Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare have been entirely successful, so they are presumptively due costs: Rule 10.29(1). Since each made a separate Application and submitted their own written materials, I conclude both Mr. Terrigno and Mr. De Cesare should each

receive a costs award. A lump sum award is appropriate to bring problematic litigation to a timely and conclusive endpoint: Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 . Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius are each separately ordered: 1. to pay Mr. Terrigno $5,000 in costs, forthwith, and 2. to pay Mr. De Cesare $3,000 in costs, forthwith, for a total of $16,000. I have imposed a larger costs award in favour of Mr. Terrigno since he was both a successful Applicant and Respondent. [ 89 ] Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius may disagree with this outcome.

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. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius, if Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius disagree with the result of this Decision, they may appeal the result to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 90 ] Counsel for Mr. De Cesare shall prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. [ 91 ] This Decision and the corresponding Order shall be served on Mr. Terrigno, Mr. Uhrik, and Ms. Litzius via the email addresses indicated in their Applications. Mr. Terrigno’s, Mr. Uhrik’s, and Ms.

Litzius’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Heard on the 11 th day of October, 2022. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 17 th day of April, 2023. M.H. Bourque J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Tibor Uhrik Self-Represented Litigant Lieselotte Litzius Self-Represented Litigant Mike Terrigno Self-Represented Litigant Jonathan Denis KC for the Applicant Michele De Cesare