Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2023 ABKB 661

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, 2023 ABKB 661 Date: Docket: 2101 07946 Registry: Calgary Between: Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff - and - Sandra Ann Anderson A.K.A. Sandra-Ann, Authorized Representative A.K.A. Sandra-Ann: Anderson, A.K.A. Sandra Anderson, Woman Sandra of the Anderson Family, A.K.A. I Woman Sandra-Ann, Acting As Agent for and on Behalf of Sandra Anderson, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann:woman, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann, Executor, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann: Anderson All Rights Reserve Cestui Que Use, Principal Beneficial Owner, A.K.A. Sandra-Ann Ambassador, A.K.A.

I: Sandra-Ann: Anderson, Child of God, A.K.A. :sandra-Ann: From the House of Anderson, A.K.A. :sandra-Ann: Anderson Authorized Agent and Beneficial Owner of the Trust Known As Anderson, Sandra Ann©, Trust and Estate Respondent / Defendant - and - Attorney General of Canada Applicant / Third Party _______________________________________________________

Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] This Memorandum of Decision responds to the continuing problematic activities of Sandra Ann Anderson [Ms. Anderson], whose record of inappropriate and abusive litigation conduct now extends back years. As the Administrative Justice for southern Alberta, I am responding to Ms. Anderson’s activities as Jones J, who has been managing Ms. Anderson, is unavailable. [ 2 ] 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 other 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 ]. [ 3 ] 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 those actions. [ 4 ] 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. [ 5 ] Because of this situation, this Court ordered Royal Trust pay into court a total of $650,000 in funds from the estate of Ms. Anderson’s father ( Estate of James Carl Anderson , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. ES01 119128): Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABKB 733 [ RBC v Anderson #5 ]; Docken v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 313 [ Docken #2 ].

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 . After multiple fines and other payments, $364,730.68 in funds remained on September 12, 2023: Docken v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 515 at para 18 [ Docken #4 ]. [ 6 ] This Decision responds to actions by Ms. Anderson running up to a hearing before Price J on October 31, 2023.

Some explanation is necessary to understand the history and basis of this hearing: March 23, 2021 – Ms. Anderson filed with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench a packet of documents [ Vigilante Lawsuit ] that purported to unilaterally commence a vigilante OPCA proceeding in the “Anderson Court”, that would use Alberta Court of King’s Bench facilities, where Ms. Anderson is the “prosecutor”, operating under the “common law”. The targets of this purported proceeding were employees and administrators of the Canada Border Service Agency and a Public Prosecution Service of Canada lawyer.

These individuals were directly or indirectly involved in Ms. Anderson being fined and subject to criminal proceedings that resulted from her international horse smuggling. May 3, 2021 – Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada referred the March 23, 2021 filings for a Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] “show cause” review. May 13, 2021 – Rooke ACJ issued Anderson v Ossowski , 2021 ABQB 382 [ Anderson v Ossowski #1 ] that stayed the Vigilante Lawsuit , and required Ms. Anderson establish that the Vigilante Lawsuit had a valid basis. June 1, 2021 – Ms.

Anderson responded with further pseudolaw materials, the Vigilante Lawsuit was struck out, and Ms. Anderson was instructed to make submissions as to why she should not be subject to elevated cost awards: Anderson v Ossowski , 2021 ABQB 428 [ Anderson v Ossowski #2 ]. June 11, 2021 – Ms. Anderson responded by sending the Court copies of the earlier two Anderson v Ossowski Decisions, having written across these documents “No Trespass Contract Declined”. Associate Chief Justice Rooke imposed a total of $27,500 in costs: Anderson v Ossowski , 2021 ABQB 456 [ Anderson v Ossowski #3 ].

February 14, 2022 – The Attorney General of Canada made an application to Ms. Anderson subject to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 court access restrictions. April 26, 2022 - Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Canada v Anderson imposed court access restrictions and awarded $2,000 in costs against Ms. Anderson. Subsequent to these events, Ms. Anderson became involved in several further lawsuits before this Court:

• Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , Action No. 2101 07946 – debt collection and foreclosure of a property owned by Ms. Anderson. • Docken v Anderson , Action No. 2201 08392 – a defamation action against Ms. Anderson and her sister Susan Anderson. [ 7 ] Both these proceedings have now concluded. Ms. Anderson’s property was foreclosed and debts confirmed.

In the Docken v Anderson action, the two sisters were found liable in defamation, and assessed $6.655 million in damages, and $30,000 in costs. [ 8 ] As previously indicated, the “security against pseudolaw and abusive conduct” funds were ordered to be paid into the Court to account for Ms. Anderson’s absolute refusal to pay any damages, costs, penalties, and other court-ordered penalties. Instead, Ms.

Anderson responds with pseudolaw claims that it is she who is owed money, because of discredited banking conspiracy theories, and as penalties from her “fee schedules”: see e.g., Anderson (Re) , 2022 ABQB 35 at para 5 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 577 at para 17 [ RBC v Anderson #4 ]. Ms. Anderson’s refusal to comply with court orders has required that innocent parties and the Court to obtain payments from the “security against pseudolaw and abusive conduct” funds. [ 9 ] Unsurprisingly, Ms. Anderson has not paid the $29,500 in costs ordered in Anderson v Ossowski #3 and Canada v Anderson .

On October 5, 2023, the Attorney General of Canada made application to have the Alberta Court of King’s Bench order that the current debt of $31,497.13, including interest, be paid from the “security against pseudolaw and abusive conduct” funds pool. This Application was filed in the Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson foreclosure proceeding. But for clarity, the bank was in no way involved, since that proceeding had ended. The Application was heard on October 31, 2023 by Price J. As will become apparent, Ms.

Anderson was aware of this hearing, but she did not appear. [ 10 ] Price J on October 31, 2023 granted the Attorney General of Canada’s Application, and ordered that the Attorney General of Canada was to be paid the full amount from the “security against pseudolaw and abusive conduct” funds. That reduces the remaining security pool held by the Court to $333,233.55. II. Ms. Anderson’s October 2023 Activities [ 11 ] Ms. Anderson is subject to very strict communications and filing restrictions with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. These instructions have proven necessary because Ms.

Anderson has, directly or via proxies, persistently and repeatedly engaged in inappropriate activities. She has harassed and bullied court staff, engaged in OPCA litigation and activities, and disrupted in-court proceedings. [ 12 ] The requirements for Ms. Anderson to access the Court were set in RBC v Anderson #2 at para 62 : 1. Ms. Anderson is prohibited from any direct or indirect communication with the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench, except:

a) in documentary form and by registered mail to [the office of the justice managing Ms. Anderson’s litigation], or

b) by filing or submitting documents via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Ms. Anderson in the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . 2. To exclude any confusion, that means that Ms. Anderson is prohibited from any communication with any Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench staff and decision makers, for example by email, telephone, letters or other correspondence, and faxes. 3. Ms.

Anderson is prohibited from filing any documents with the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench, except according to paragraph 1(b), and, unless Ms. Anderson engages the services of a lawyer, the only way that Ms. Anderson may file any documents with the Alberta Court of [King’s] Bench is if:

a) those documents are received by [the office of the justice managing Ms. Anderson’s litigation], by registered mail;

b) after review, those documents are determined to be legally valid and not at abuse of the court; and

c) Ms. Anderson then pays a filing and document review payment set by the Court. 4. Ms. Anderson may only communicate with [the office of the justice managing Ms. Anderson’s litigation] and file documents using the name “Sandra Ann Anderson”, and not using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. 5. When Ms. Anderson is permitted to file any document with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, that filing may include a pre- requisite that Ms. Anderson is required to pay security for costs in an amount determined by the Court. 6. When a document, submitted by Ms.

Anderson, is rejected pursuant to this Decision, Ms. Anderson may be required to pay a penalty amount. [ 13 ] As previously noted, Ms. Anderson does not comply with the litigation management steps that have been imposed by the Court. That has led to a series of Rule 10.49(1) penalties assessed against Ms. Anderson, then paid out of the “security against pseudolaw and abusive conduct” pool. [ 14 ] In the period prior to the October 31, 2023 appearance, Ms. Anderson took a number of steps that breached these restrictions: October 25, 2023 – Ms.

Anderson submitted a request to the Clerk of the Court to change the October 31, 2023 hearing to a video Webex process. That request was rejected pursuant to RBC v Anderson #2 , and Ms. Anderson was cautioned to follow the RBC v Anderson #2 process.

October 30, 2023 – A package of documents was received from Ms. Anderson, sent by Xpresspost, and not registered mail as required by RBC v Anderson #2 process. These items are detailed below. October 31, 2023 – Ms. Anderson on several occasions called the Clerk of the Court. Ms. Anderson was cautioned that she should not communicate with the Clerks via telephone. While the initial communications were polite, Ms. Anderson subsequently announced that she was recording her telephone calls, and that she would not be subject to any further fines for her breach of RBC v Anderson #2 . The Clerk hung up on Ms.

Anderson. [ 15 ] The October 30, 2023 package included three items: 1. A cover letter, marked “PRIVATE COMMUNICATION”, dated October 26, 2023, requesting filing of an attached “Application for Motion to Dismiss” and Affidavit of Ms. Anderson, signed by “Sandra Anderson, Authorized Representative, All Rights Reserved, Without Recourse, Without Prejudice”. 2. A six-page “Application for Motion to Dismiss”, that asks the Court: • to dismiss the Attorney General of Canada’s October 5, 2023 Application; • to grant “litigation awards” for the benefit of Ms.

Anderson for alleged breaches of the Alberta Rules of Court ; and • to order that be paid as though she is a lawyer, as she has “incurred hours and costs just as any other lawyer”, billing $425 per hour, for 70 hours. Briefly, Ms. Anderson then challenges the validity of the CPN7 process, and claims the Vigilante Lawsuit Decisions are improper, flawed, and made without jurisdiction. Ms. Anderson says that CPN7 is not a valid procedure because it “... was never introduced as a Bill into the Provincial Legislature”. Further, Ms.

Anderson concludes: Nothing in Sandra’s [ Vigilante Lawsuit Statement of Claim] was ever rebutted nor proven false by any of the Crown Employees, including the Defendants, Counsel for the Defendants ..., Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke and or the Court ... 3. A 105-page Affidavit of Ms. Anderson sworn by video before a Texas Notary Public. Most of the exhibits attached to the Affidavit are documents from the Vigilante Lawsuit . Much of document repeats the Application, and in that sense is more argument than a proper Affidavit.

The Affidavit also discusses the constitutional foundation for Canadian law, declares Ms. Anderson is a “natural person”, and makes obscure comments about her jurisdiction as being “municipal”, and that she has unilaterally “withdrawn” the “person”, “Sandra Ann Anderson,” from federal and provincial jurisdiction: ... Sandra Anderson has been established by the Municipality as part of the municipality and as part of a municipality and as such Sandra, has the capacity, rights powers and privileges of a natural person; and ...

Sandra Anderson so established in the general federal jurisdiction of the Constitution with the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person, Sandra protects and preserves Her Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 and Alberta Bill of Rights enacted in 1972; and ... Is should be noted that Sandra, has notified the Attorney General of Canada, received via RN662339807CA on June 2, 2023, of the withdrawal of the person, Sandra Ann Anderson from any public representation at all levels of government in Canada and Alberta; and ...

That any further request for the person, Sandra Ann Anderson, to act as agent for the government, i.e. attendance in court, will incur additional fees under contract #RN662339807CA The Affidavit continues to conclude that no Alberta judges are properly authorized because of their oaths, that any judges who do not acceded to Ms. Anderson’s claims and demands will be personally liable, that Ms. Anderson has been defamed by Decisions of this Court, and that the Attorney General of Alberta has a fiduciary duty, presumably to Ms.

Anderson, though this component of the Affidavit is opaque. [ 16 ] The October 30, 2023 package is not properly before the Court since Ms. Anderson has not complied with the RBC v Anderson #2 process. Furthermore, even if she had complied with those requirements, and was granted leave to file the Application and Affidavit, then that would be the responsibility of Ms. Anderson - and not the Court - including paying the necessary filing fee. [ 17 ] I will briefly examine the substance of Ms. Anderson’s Application, since that is relevant to possibly penalty steps. First, I find Ms.

Anderson’s Application is futile and an abuse of court processes. I make that determination because since the Application is - collateral attack on the Vigilante Lawsuit judgments of this Court. If Ms. Anderson disagrees with those judgments, she needs to challenge those Decisions before the Alberta Court of Appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction to examine the legal basis, analysis, and/or outcomes in Anderson v Ossowski #1 -3 . [ 18 ] Second, the core argument advanced by Ms. Anderson is that CPN7 is not law, and therefore her Vigilante Lawsuit was struck out with no legal basis. If Ms.

Anderson examines the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 as published by the Alberta King’s Printer, she will find CPN7 is part of that legislation. Furthermore, the authority of superior courts of inherent jurisdiction to implement processes and mechanisms to manage litigation, such as CPN7, is a foundational component of those courts’ authority to control processes: I H Jacob, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1970) 23 Current Leg Probs 23 at 32-40; R v Caron , 2011 SCC 5 . Ms. Anderson’s claim to reject CPN7 is, therefore, incorrect. [ 19 ] Beyond that, Ms.

Anderson continues to make known pseudolaw. In the interest of judicial economy, I will only highlight several examples:

1. Ms. Anderson continues to advance Strawman Theory concepts and motifs: Burles v Lakhani , 2023 ABKB 409 at paras 11-12 , see also Meads v Meads at paras 417-446 ; Pomerleau v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2017 ABQB 123 at paras 67-88 ; Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments and Magic and Ceremony” (2018) 55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1068-1078. Ms. Anderson continues to claim there are two of her, where she is the “Authorized Representative” for herself.

In her Affidavit she claims “... withdrawal of the person, Sandra Ann Anderson from any public representation at all levels of government in Canada and Alberta ...”, into “municipal” jurisdiction, a step that apparently was unilaterally imposed by Ms. Anderson by pseudolaw paperwork sent to the Attorney General of Canada.

Strawman Theory is so notoriously false that anyone who employs Strawman Theory is presumed to do so in bad faith, and for abusive, ulterior purposes: Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40 ; Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21 ; Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 180 . Ms. Anderson has been penalized repeatedly for using Strawman Theory, so she knows this Court, and all Canadian courts, reject these not-law arguments. 2. Ms.

Anderson’s claims that a defect in judicial oaths of office collapses court authority is a notorious OPCA strategy: Meads v Meads , at paras 287-290 . 3. Ms. Anderson advances the commonplace pseudolaw claim that any legal action must identify an injured party: No person or individual has come forward with any application in the Court of King’s Bench with a claim “injury” or “injustice” or that Sandra Anerson has injured others or caused injustice ... [sic]. Injury is not a prerequisite for a cost award, but rather costs are presumptively due in favour of successful parties: Rule 10.29(1).

Furthermore, this argument makes no sense since in the Vigilante Lawsuit it was Ms. Anderson who claimed she was injured by “trespassers”. [ 20 ] Ms. Anderson’s Application and Affidavit would therefore have been rejected for filing as an abuse of the Court and the Applicant. Pursuant to RBC v Anderson #2 , this is a further basis to impose penalties. III. Responding to Ms. Anderson’s Continuing Litigation Misconduct [ 21 ] I conclude that Ms. Anderson’s prohibited communications and her submitting a patently abusive application for filing warrants a further Rule 10.49(1) penalty.

I make this determination by following the existing scheme set out in RBC v Anderson #4 . 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 $40,000: Docken #4 at para 39 . The current baseline penalty is now $45,000. [ 22 ] This Court previously imposed penalties above the baseline in response to aggravating aspects of Ms.

Anderson’s abusive litigation conduct: see, Docken v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 291 at paras 27 , 30; Docken #2 at paras 39-40 ; Docken v Anderson , 2023 ABKB 474 at para 17 ; Docken #4 at paras 41-42 . [ 23 ] Here, I identify several aggravating factors in Ms. Anderson’s activities.

She: 1. repeatedly breached the RBC v Anderson #2 communications guidelines, after being warned against doing so; 2. threatened a Clerk of the Court by saying she was recording their conversation; and 3. continued to engage in abusive conduct that she was aware was prohibited, and specifically warned against, including notorious Strawman Theory OPCA strategies she knows will be rejected. [42] I conclude that this pattern of behaviour and aggravating factors warrants an elevated Rule 10.49(1) penalty of $55,000. The $55,000 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 $333,233.55, reducing the remaining funds to $278,233.55. IV. Conclusion [ 24 ] The Court orders the Clerk of the Court satisfy the Rule 10.49(1) penalty imposed in this Memorandum of Decision by paying $55,000 of the funds held by the Court pursuant to RBC v Anderson #5 at paras 19-21 and Docken #2 at para 44 . [ 25 ] The Court will prepare and file the Order imposing and implementing the $55,000 Rule 10.49(1) penalty. The approval of Ms.

Anderson of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms. Anderson 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 and its corresponding Order will also be directed to Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada in the October 5, 2023 Application. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 22 nd day of November, 2023.

D.B. Nixon A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Sandra Ann Anderson Self-represented Litigant