Jorgensen v Paraniuk, 2023 ABKB 618

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Jorgensen v Paraniuk, 2023 ABKB 618 Date: 20231103 Dockets: 2303 18722, 2303 18761 Registry: Edmonton Between: Docket: 2303 18722 Greg Paraniuk Proposed Applicant - and - Charity Jorgensen Proposed Respondent And between: Docket: 2303 18761 Greg Paraniuk Proposed Applicant - and - Sharon Rondeau Proposed Respondent

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On December 13, 2018, Greg Paraniuk (Mr. Paraniuk) was made subject to indefinite and global court access restrictions in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in a Memorandum of Decision of Little J reported as Paraniuk v Pierce , 2018 ABQB 1015 ( Paraniuk #1 ). The effect of Paraniuk #1 is that Mr. Paraniuk may not initiate or continue litigation at the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta except when Mr.

Paraniuk obtains permission from the Court - “leave” - to conduct those steps. [ 2 ] On October 25, 2023, the Office of the Chief Justice of Alberta received an “Application by Greg Doe”, and an unsworn Affidavit of “Greg Doe”. Briefly, the “Application” seeks that: 1. the Court order two Restraining Orders (the “Restraining Orders”) issued in Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in Action Nos. 2303 18722, 2303 18761 struck out; and 2. the Court impose a separate Restraining Order on Sharon Rose Rondeau (Ms. Rondeau) and Charity Jorgensen (Ms.

Jorgensen) “... for a lengthy if not indefinite time period, to be determined.” [ 3 ] These materials were referred to me as candidate leave requests. I am an Administrative Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta who receives and reviews requests for leave by persons subject to court access restrictions. [ 4 ] The unusual naming in this matter appears to be a consequence of how the Action Nos. 2303 18722, 2303 18761 Restraining Orders were issued. Ms. Rondeau and Ms.

Jorgensen appeared before Kendell J on October 16, 2023 on an ex-parte basis, seeking the Restraining Orders against a neighbor who lives in the same apartment building, who is Mr. Paraniuk. However, at that time Ms. Rondeau and Ms. Jorgensen did not know Mr. Paraniuk’s last name, and so the litigation initially was conducted with “Greg Doe” as the Respondent. The October 16, 2023 Restraining Orders were reviewed on October 30, 2023 by Whitling J. At this point Mr. Paraniuk did appear, and his last name was determined.

Justice Whitling instructed that the styles of cause in these files be amended to change the Respondent’s name to Greg Paraniuk. [ 5 ] Justice Whitling also set the Restraining Orders’ conditions to be that Mr. Paraniuk, while inside and outside the apartment building, cannot: 1. be within five meters of Ms. Rondeau or Ms. Jorgensen; 2. speak to Ms. Rondeau or Ms. Jorgensen; or 3. video record Ms. Rondeau or Ms. Jorgensen. The current Restraining Orders are set to be reviewed on February 16, 2024. [ 6 ] I am responding to Mr.

Paraniuk’s October 25, 2023 correspondence as being two distinct requests for leave to file an Application, to: (1) terminate the Restraining Orders obtained by Ms. Rondeau and Ms. Jorgensen, and (2) obtain a Restraining Order that prohibits and/or limits contact by Ms. Rondeau and/or Ms. Jorgensen with Mr. Paraniuk. Given a review date has been set for the current Restraining Orders, I reject Mr. Paraniuk’s request for leave to file an Application that evaluates or challenges the existing Restraining Orders. Mr.

Paraniuk is free to file Affidavit evidence for the February 16, 2024 hearing. [ 7 ] What is a separate question is whether the parties to the existing Restraining Orders should be mutually and reciprocally required to not contact each other. I now turn to that issue, and evaluate whether Mr. Paraniuk should be permitted to file an Application that seeks to have the Court restrain Ms. Rondeau and/or Ms. Jorgensen. II.

Test for Leave to Initiate Litigation [ 8 ] “... [A] person subject to court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019).

[ 9 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of Court activities on the same standard. A person subject to court access restrictions must: 1) establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and 2) depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 .) [ 10 ] This threshold, that must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one, and, in many ways, parallels the test for

Summary Judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26. The person subject to Court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an Action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 11 ] In addition, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 345 stressed a broad and contextual evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed litigation.

To determine whether a leave request is reasonable, a court may take into account the purposes of the specific court access restrictions (para 34), economic aspects of the proposed litigation (paras 40, 49), failure to pay costs (para 47-48), and the potential the justice system will be misused (para 46). [ 12 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, Application, Appeal, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed initiating filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 13 ] Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 ; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 14 ] Leave submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1) where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38266 (31 January 2019); Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta v Drover , 2021 ABQB 511 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ); 2) if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place Foundation of Alberta v Templanza , 2019 ABQB 45 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABQB 208 ; Knutson (Re) , 2021 ABQB 367 ; McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 550 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 79 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 97 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Fiset v Feeney , 2022 ABQB 211 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 354 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 498 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ; Hayden v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2023 ABKB 100 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 295 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2023 ABKB 384 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ; Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2023 ABKB 390 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ; Knutson (Re) , 2023 ABKB 589 ); 3) where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); 4) where the abusive litigant provides false information or fails to provide necessary information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ); 5) where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as a transcript of a proceeding proposed for appeal ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ; Carter v Horizon Housing Society , 2023 ABKB 558 ); 6) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ); and 7) where the individual subject to court access restrictions does not have standing to make the leave request ( Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ). [ 15 ] There is no appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta of a decision to deny leave to initiate or continue litigation: r 14.5(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 ; Re Gauthier , 2018 ABCA 14 at para 8 .

A litigant who is denied leave to initiate or continue litigation by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. III. Analysis [ 16 ] A complicating factor in this analysis is that the information that Mr. Paraniuk has provided in his Application and Affidavit is a mixture of: 1. descriptions of events, interactions, and communications;

2. allegations, some of which use legal terminology, and that are not in chronological order; 3. reproduced emails with certain redactions; and 4. images that appear in some instances to be stills from a longer video recording, which I will comment upon further. [ 17 ] After review of these materials, I have compiled the following alleged and/or admitted facts: 1. Mr. Paraniuk, Ms. Rondeau, and Ms. Jorgensen are tenants in the same apartment building. Ms. Rondeau lives on the same floor as Mr. Paraniuk, but their apartments are some length apart on a common hallway. Ms.

Jorgensen lives in the apartment directly above Mr. Paraniuk. 2. Mr. Paraniuk has many complaints about the sounds coming from the apartment directly above him. He complains of “... extraordinarily stressful impact noises ... at random times of day and night ...”. In emails attached to his Affidavit, he describes being highly stressed and disrupted by these sounds: This sound is severely disrupting my sleep and fracturing my thinking. I am constantly on edge wondering when they are going to be dropping things again.

I have to sleep with ear plugs and construction-type earmuffs to proactively try to avoid hearing whatever it is they are doing. I have tried white noise in headphones and I think that is damaging my hearing. This shouldn't be my problem. (Emphasis in original.) Mr. Paraniuk made complaints to police, building management, and building security about these sounds. 3. Mr. Paraniuk decided to take steps to identify the source of the impact noises. He on a number of occasions went outside the apartment building, and used his cellphone to capture video of the apartment above him. Mr.

Paraniuk included images from these recordings in his Affidavit exhibits, dated September 6, 2023 at 1:45 AM, and September 12, 2023 at 2:00 AM. The images look into the interior of Ms. Jorgensen’s apartment. Mr. Paraniuk then showed these video recordings to the apartment building security and management. 4. On September 16, 2023 Edmonton Police Service Officers attended Mr. Paraniuk’s residence and interviewed him about making the September 6 and 12, 2023 recordings of Ms. Jorgensen’s residence. They cautioned Mr.

Paraniuk that his activities could be a basis for voyeurism charges, and that he should discontinue making any such recordings. The Edmonton Police Officers then told Mr. Paraniuk that they would inform Ms. Jorgensen of the noise complaints and video recordings. 5. Mr. Paraniuk’s video recording activity apparently became known to Ms. Rondeau as well. That led to confrontations between Mr. Paraniuk and Ms. Rondeau. Mr. Paraniuk described how starting on September 20, 2023 that there have been hostile and negative interactions between Mr. Paraniuk and Ms. Rondeau. Ms. Rondeau reportedly yelled at Mr.

Paraniuk, calling Mr. Paraniuk offensive names, alleging Mr. Paraniuk is a pervert, and saying “You’re a dead man.” Particularly relevant is Mr. Paraniuk’s Affidavit attached a series of images, dated September 20, 2023, that appear to show Ms. Rondeau confronting Mr. Paraniuk, then first holding and then moving to throw a stone aimed at Mr. Paraniuk (Exhibit “C”). [ 18 ] Given this narrative, and especially the Exhibit “C” images, I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr.

Paraniuk has offered some basis for him seeking to have the existing Restraining Orders expanded to impose mutual and/or reciprocal steps to minimize contact between Mr. Paraniuk, and Ms. Rondeau and/or Ms. Jorgensen. I, therefore, grant leave to Mr. Paraniuk to take that step by the following process. [ 19 ] If Mr. Paraniuk wishes to seek to have the Restraining Orders expanded to impose court-imposed prohibitions on Ms. Rondeau and/or Ms. Jorgensen, then Mr. Paraniuk shall: 1. prepare an Application to expand the existing Action Nos. 2303 18722, 2303 18761 Restraining Orders to include restrictions on Ms.

Rondeau and/or Ms. Jorgensen, to be heard on February 16, 2024; and 2. prepare an Affidavit that explains the basis for that Application, and attaching relevant exhibits; 3. by January 5, 2024, file the Application and Affidavit with the Clerk of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta; Mr. Paraniuk can show the Clerk of the Court this Memorandum of Decision to establish he may take that step; 4. serve the filed copies of the Application and Affidavit upon Ms. Rondeau and Ms.

Jorgensen, by registered mail, with those documents posted no later than January 12, 2024; and 5. attend the February 16, 2024 Restraining Order review hearing. [ 20 ] For clarity, if on February 16, 2024, Mr. Paraniuk does not seek to expand the existing Restraining Orders, but only challenge the restrictions set by Whitling J on October 30, 2023, then Mr. Paraniuk does not require leave to file an Affidavit that provides evidence for why the existing Restraining Orders should not be extended. IV. Conclusion [ 21 ] Mr. Paraniuk’s request to file an Application to terminate the Restraining Orders is rejected. Mr.

Paraniuk is, however, granted leave to make an Application to expand the existing Restraining Orders to restrict Ms. Rondeau’s and Ms. Jorgensen’s interactions with Mr. Paraniuk. [ 22 ] I note that the neighbor noise complaint dispute here has parallels with the facts of the initial dispute in Paraniuk #1 , which

led to a protracted and abusive lawsuit that was ultimately struck out by Little J. That led to a total $80,000 cost award against Mr. Paraniuk. I strongly recommend that Mr. Paraniuk carefully consider the steps he takes going forward. As this Memorandum of Decision illustrates, the Court recognizes and respects Mr. Paraniuk rights to be free of harassment. However, Mr. Paraniuk also has obligations to those around him, and to the Court as well. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3 rd day of November, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by submissions: Greg Paraniuk for the Self-represented Litigant