Docken v Anderson, 2023 ABKB 474

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Docken v Anderson, 2023 ABKB 474 Date: 20230816 Docket: 2201 08392 Registry: Calgary Between: Clint Docken and Guardian Law Group LLP Plaintiffs - and - Sandra Anderson and Susan Anderson Defendants - and - Estella Meza and Basil Panidisz Interfering Third Parties _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Justice C.M. Jones

_______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Sandra Ann Anderson [Ms. Anderson] is a problematic litigant with an extended record of inappropriate and abusive litigation conduct that now extends back years. Ms. Anderson is a highly active, abusive Organized Pseudolaw Commercial Argument [OPCA] ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ) litigant. Ms. Anderson’s record of repeated and persistent abuse of this Court and litigants led Associate Chief Justice Rooke to on April 26, 2022 impose court access restrictions on Ms.

Anderson following a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 Application by the Attorney General of Canada: Canada (Attorney General) v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 310 [ Canada v Anderson ]. Further stringent communications and filing restrictions were subsequently imposed on Ms. Anderson in Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 525 at para 62 [ RBC v Anderson #2 ]. [ 2 ] Ms. Anderson litigates to inflict harm on those who defy her illegal activities. Ms. Anderson has repeatedly and consistently employed disruptive and harassing OPCA strategies in her litigation and has been repeatedly penalized for that.

This Court has concluded that Ms. Anderson will never voluntarily pay any penalty, costs award, or judgment against her. Contempt sanctions are ineffective because Ms. Anderson does not respond to court instructions and is already the target of multiple arrest warrants that result from Ms. Anderson’s refusal to appear in Alberta Court of Justice criminal proceedings where she is the accused. [ 3 ] Because of this situation, in Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABKB 733 [ RBC v Anderson #5 ], Associate Chief Justice Rooke ordered that Royal Trust pay into court $250,000 in funds from Ms.

Anderson’s inheritance from the estate of Ms. Anderson’s father ( Estate of James Carl Anderson , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. ES01 119128). Those funds were called “security for costs”, but really that pool of money is more accurately described as “security against pseudolaw and abusive conduct by Ms.

Anderson in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that injures others and causes injustice.”: Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 180 [ RBC v Anderson #9 ] . [ 4 ] That pool of security funds has now been almost depleted, so in Docken v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 313 [ Docken #2 ], I ordered that Royal Trust pay a further $400,000 into Court: Docken v Anderson #2 at para 44. The result is the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Clerk of the Court currently holds $4 54,730.68 in security for litigation misconduct funds. [ 5 ] Currently, Ms.

Anderson is a co-Defendant in a civil lawsuit conducted by Clint Docken and Guardian Law Group LLP [Plaintiffs]. The other Defendant is Ms. Anderson’s sister Susan Anderson. The Anderson sisters have been noted in default. Rather than cooperate and engage in this lawsuit, Ms. Anderson has once more employed pseudolaw schemes, that are detailed in Docken v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 291 at paras 6-22 [ Docken #1 ], and Docken #2 at paras 22-36 . A new aspect of Ms.

Anderson’s abusive litigation strategies is her using two proxies to conduct elements of her litigation activities: a Calgary resident named Basil Panidisz , and Estella Meza, a person who provided a mailing address in Rochelle, Illinois. These individuals claim to be “Trustees” of something called “SANDRA ANN ANDERSON”, a “Living Trust”, what Canadian law classifies as a fictitious pseudolaw “Strawman Theory” strategy: Docken #2 at paras 6-7 . [ 6 ] In Docken #1 at paras 40-42 I included Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza within the existing penalty scheme for misconduct by Ms.

Anderson, and imposed communications and filing prohibitions, and interim court access restrictions on Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza. I then requested that the Plaintiffs indicate by June 16, 2023 whether they would initiate a Judicature Act s 23.1(4) application to expand the existing Canada v Anderson court access restrictions to include Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza: Docken #1 at para 43 .

The Plaintiffs by letter dated May 16, 2023 confirmed they would make the requested Judicature Act s 23.1(4) application, and the Court accordingly in Docken #2 at paras 17-18 set out a timeline for that application to proceed on a document-only basis. However, the Plaintiffs did not make that application. [ 7 ] This Memorandum of Decision addresses two issues: 1. steps to manage Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza pursuant to Judicature Act s 23.1(4), and 2. penalties in response to Ms. Anderson’s most recent breach of court orders. II. Judicature Act s 23.1(4) Application on the Court’s Own Motion [ 8 ]

Section 23.1(4) of the Judicature Act states: The Court may at any time on application or on its own motion , with notice to the Minister, make an order under subsection (1) applicable to any other individual or entity specified by the Court who in the opinion of the Court is associated with the person against whom an order under subsection (1) is made. [Emphasis added.] [ 9 ] In Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 , Slatter JA “read down” the “on its own motion” authority of this Court to impose Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access gatekeeping to a residual form, where “own motion” steps by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench are only permitted after the Court requested involved non-abusive litigation parties take steps, and then nothing followed.

Only then could this Court act on its own. I conclude that the rule in Jonsson v Lymer “reading down” “own motion” Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 applications applies equally to the Judicature Act ss 23.1(4) process. [ 10 ] I have requested that the Plaintiffs in the Docken v Anderson lawsuit institute a Judicature Act s 23.1(4) application that

would expand the existing Anderson v Canada court access restrictions currently imposed on Ms. Anderson to also apply to her litigation proxies Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza. The Plaintiffs did not do so.

I conclude, in parallel to the process for the Court to exercise its residual “own motion” authority to initiate a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application ( Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 405 at paras 6-18 ), that the Plaintiffs’ promise to file a Judicature Act s 23.1(4) application by June 23, 2023, but then not do so, satisfies the criteria for this Court to initiate the Judicature Act s 23.1(4) process on its own. [ 11 ] In support of this Application, I note that Ms.

Anderson is subject to ongoing court access restrictions and litigation management steps imposed in Anderson v Canada and RBC v Anderson #2 . Ms. Anderson has not taken any steps to appeal or otherwise (legitimately) challenge these steps. Ms. Anderson’s litigation misconduct, and the roles of Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza in those activities, is documented in detail in Docken #1 and Docken #2 .

I conclude that record provides a clear basis for this Court to proceed on its own motion with a Judicature Act s 23.1(4) Application to apply the existing Anderson v Canada court access gatekeeping to Basil Panidisz and Estella Meza as well. [ 12 ] Following this Court’s usual process ( Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 565 ), the Judicature Act s 23.1(4) procedure will be conducted on a document-only basis. Ms.

Anderson, Estella Meza, and Basil Panidisz have until August 31, 2023 to submit to my office their written arguments and affidavit evidence, if any, as to why Estella Meza, and Basil Panidisz should not be subject to court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act s 23.1(4). After receipt of those materials, or expiry of the August 31, 2023 deadline, the Court will render a written decision in response to the Court’s own motion Judicature Act s 23.1(4) Application. [ 13 ] In Docken #2 at paras 19-20 , I stated: ... I stress several points to Estella Meza and Basil Panidisz.

First, the interim court access restrictions imposed in Docken #1 do not apply to their written [argument] and affidavit evidence. The same goes for Ms. Anderson. Instead, the only method for Ms. Anderson, Estella Meza, and Basil Panidisz to properly submit their written [argument] and affidavit evidence, if any, is in compliance with the Docken #1 and RBC v Anderson #2 communications structure, so either by: 1. registered mail to my office, or 2. a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Ms.

Anderson, Estella Meza, and/or Basil Panidisz in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . ... I will draw a negative inference from and reject any materials not received via these specific avenues. Failure to follow these instructions may also result in Rule 10.49(1) penalties. Those instructions continue to apply. III. Additional Misconduct by Ms. Anderson [ 14 ] On July 20, 2023, Ms. Anderson telephoned the Calgary Clerk of the Court, identifying herself by name. Ms. Anderson demanded to know the status of certain litigation where she is involved.

The Clerk informed Ms. Anderson that Ms. Anderson is prohibited from communicating with the Court by telephone: RBC v Anderson #2 at para 62 . Ms. Anderson said her lawyer (not named) would contact the Alberta Court of King’s Bench unless Ms. Anderson’s requests were met. That lawyer never materialized. The Clerk hung up when Ms. Anderson repeatedly called. [ 15 ] Additional telephone calls were received the following week from persons purporting to not be Ms. Anderson, demanding information concerning Ms. Anderson’s litigation. None of these persons was a lawyer.

The Clerks did not provide any requested information. Alberta Court of Justice staff also received telephone demands from Ms. Anderson. [ 16 ] Ms. Anderson clearly breached the communications and litigation management procedure imposed in RBC v Anderson #2 , and did so persistently. This behaviour is yet another example of Ms. Anderson ignoring the Court’s attempts to manage her litigation misconduct, and to shield the Court’s staff from her abusive activity. This warrants a further Rule 10.49(1) penalty, following the existing scheme set in Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 577 .

Associate Chief Justice Rooke at para 25 ruled that Ms. Anderson “... should also anticipate that additional penalties will increase, stepwise, until Ms. Anderson discontinues her misconduct.” The most recent “baseline” penalty imposed for Ms. Anderson’s bad conduct was $30,000: Docken #2 at para 38 . The current baseline penalty is now $35,000. [ 17 ] This Court has previously imposed penalties above the baseline in response to aggravating aspects of Ms. Anderson’s abusive litigation conduct, e.g., Docken #1 at paras 27, 30 ; Docken #2 at paras 39-40 . Here, I conclude that Ms.

Anderson’s persistently calling the Clerk of the Court, despite being informed that communication was prohibited, warrants an elevated Rule 10.49(1) penalty of $40,000. [ 18 ] The $40,000 Rule 10.49(1) penalty on Ms. Anderson will be paid by the Clerk of the Court from the RBC v Anderson #5 and Docken #2 security for misconduct pool of $4 54,730.68 , reducing the remaining funds to $$4 14,730.68 . [ 19 ] If Ms. Anderson has, in fact, retained a lawyer, I very strongly recommend that Ms. Anderson show her lawyer this and other judgments that respond to Ms. Anderson’s litigation record. Ms.

Anderson should listen carefully to the information and advice from her lawyer, if Ms. Anderson wishes to minimize future negative consequences of her actions, including additional Rule 10.49(1) penalties. IV. Conclusion

[ 20 ] Ms. Anderson, Estella Meza, and Basil Panidisz are instructed to follow the document-only Judicature Act s 23.1(4) procedure set out above. [ 21 ] The Court orders the Clerk of the Court satisfy the Rule 10.49(1) penalty imposed in this Memorandum of Decision by paying $40,000 of the funds held by the Court pursuant to RBC v Anderson #5 at paras 19-21 and Docken #2 at para 44 . [ 22 ] The Court will prepare and file the Order implementing the $40,000 Rule 10.49(1) penalty. The approval of Ms. Anderson, Estella Meza, and Basil Panidisz of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms.

Anderson, Estella Meza, and Basil Panidisz shall be served this Decision and the corresponding Order to the email addresses: andersonasandra@gmail.com and saalivingtrust@gmail.com. A copy of this Memorandum of Decision will be directed to the Minister to comply with the Judicature Act s 23.1(4) notice requirement. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 16 th day of August, 2023. C.M. Jones J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: None.