Citation: Richardson v Schafer, 2023 ABKB 727

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Citation: Richardson v Schafer, 2023 ABKB 727 Date: 20231219 Docket: 1701 17295, 2001 14323, 2001 16974, Registry: Calgary Between: Docket: 1701 17295 Kaysha Faith Richardson Plaintiff/Respondent - and – Ronald William Schafer Defendant/Applicant and Between: Docket: 2001 14323 Kaysha Faith Richardson Plaintiff/Respondent - and – Colby Christoph Wallace and Colbray Homes Ltd. Defendants/Applicants

and Between: Docket: 2001 16974 Kaysha Faith Dery, also known as Kaysha Faith Richardson Plaintiff/Respondent - and - Christopher G. Jorgensen and Ashley Mae Jorgensen Defendants/Applicants Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on December 21, 2023; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Justice J.T.

Eamon _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] This endorsement concerns the three actions listed in the title of this Endorsement in which Kaysha Richardson is the plaintiff or a co-plaintiff.

She is apparently the adult daughter of Dale Richardson, a vexatious litigant who is the subject of strict Court access restrictions to control his abusive litigation misconduct toward this Court ( Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 317 [ Richardson #1 ]; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 [ Richardson #3 ]; Richardson v MacDonald, 2022 ABKB 732 [ Richardson #8 ]). [ 2 ] Kaysha Richardson has sometimes participated in Dale Richardson’s litigation misconduct.

She has a history of “inappropriately operating as one of the litigation proxies for her father, Dale Richardson, to facilitate his abuse of this Court and its processes” ( Richardson #8 at para 54, 63 ) or of conducting “litigation as a mechanism to evade the Court’s defensive and control efforts” concerning Dale Richardson ( Richardson #3 at para 30 ). [ 3 ] Her past activities as a litigation proxy of Dale Richardson led to Associate Chief Justice Rooke (now retired) imposing Court access restrictions on her by interim order dated April 14, 2022 ( Richardson #3 at para 29-33 ) .

That misconduct, and subsequent developments where her three actions were commandeered by Dale Richardson to continue his litigation misconduct, led to a final order of ACJ Rooke dated November 3, 2022 imposing strict Court access restrictions on Dale Richardson, Kaysha Richardson, and others ( Richardson #8 at para 55, 64 ; Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order, November 3, 2022, actions 2201 02896 and 2201 03422). [ 4 ] The Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order prohibits Kaysha Richardson from proceeding with the three actions without permission of the Court.

ACJ Rooke’s directions in a second order of the same date (the Irregular Document Management Order , November 3, 2022, actions 1701 17295, 2001 14323, and 2001 16974) included that if the plaintiff does not seek leave to continue these actions within six months of November 3, 2022 the defendants may apply to strike out those aspects of the actions that relate to her.

[ 5 ] Kaysha Richardson has not applied to continue the three actions. The defendants jointly applied in morning civil chambers on August 25, 2023 to strike them because they are an abuse of process. They rely on ACJ Rooke’s Irregular Document Management Order, his reasons in Richardson #8 , and the plaintiff’s failure to apply to continue the actions. [ 6 ] Kaysha Richardson did not attend the application personally, by agent, or by counsel. [ 7 ] I heard the defendants’ submissions and reserved the matter pending review of the Court files and receipt of the parties’ affidavit(

s) of service. [ 8 ] The issues are: (

a) Was Kaysha Richardson properly served with notice of the application? (

b) Are the actions an abuse of process? [ 9 ] This application seeks termination of the plaintiff’s actions. It is an important application with a potentially significant outcome. [ 10 ] Kaysha Richardson has not appeared personally or by counsel in the application or in any of the applications or filings in the three actions since mid-2022. Any filings or appearances purportedly on her behalf since then, have been by Dale Richardson. [ 11 ] In these circumstances, the Court must be convinced that Kaysha Richardson has received proper notice of, and fair treatment in, this application.

The Court must act very cautiously, if at all, on representations from Dale Richardson made in previous proceedings or filings in this action because he is a vexatious litigant. To ensure fairness, I have reviewed the court files, carefully read the affidavit of service of this application including its lengthy attachments, listened to the FTRs of earlier Court applications on August 19, September 27, and November 22, 2022 and obtained and reviewed a copy of the formal Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order. [ 12 ] I have concluded that the defendants have properly served Kaysha Richardson.

I am mindful of Dale Richardson’s protestations emailed to counsel on August 1, 2023 that Kaysha Richardson has never been properly served and the defendants have not complied with the Hague Convention on Service (1965). I therefore find it necessary to explain the reasons for my conclusion at length. [ 13 ] I have further concluded that the actions are presumed abusive and I have struck them out. Given the potential significance of the consequences for Kaysha Richardson I have set out my reasons at length. [ 14 ] Kaysha Richardson will also find, in the concluding

section of this Endorsement, information for self represented litigants of possible steps should she disagree with the conclusions in this Endorsement. [ 15 ] This Endorsement does not affect the status of the action by Kaysha Richardson’s co-plaintiff in action 2001 16974.

Background [ 16 ] Action 1701-17295 is an action commenced on behalf of the plaintiff by Pipella Law, a Calgary law firm, on November 23, 2020 for alleged injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on January 18, 2016. [ 17 ] Action 2001-14323 is an action commenced on behalf of the plaintiff by Pipella Law on November 23, 2020 for alleged injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on November 30, 2018. [ 18 ] Action 2001-16974 is an action commenced on behalf of the plaintiff and a co-plaintiff by Pipella Law on December 22, 2020 for alleged injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on January 22, 2019. [ 19 ] By mid-2022 Pipella Law had decided to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiff in the three actions.

By application filed July 15, 2022, Pipella Law applied for a charging order over any proceeds that might be realized in the actions. Its supporting affidavit indicates that in mid-2021, Pipella Law advised the plaintiff it intended to withdraw as counsel in these actions and would be doing so no later than September 30, 2021. The application materials were sent by courier to the plaintiff’s last known physical address in South Carolina and, on August 4, 2022, signed for by “K. Richardson” at that location.

Withdrawing counsel informed the Court on the first return of the application in chambers on August 19, 2022 that the law firm had also emailed the application to the plaintiff’s personal email address. [ 20 ] The charging order application came before Applications Judge Farrington on August 19, 2022. The plaintiff did not attend. Dale Richardson appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.

Dale Richardson told Farrington AJ that the plaintiff was forced to flee to the United States and was claiming asylum under the “convention against torture”, her former lawyer at Pipella Law “is one of the reasons why she is there”, and a complaint was made to 5 jurisdictions of the RCMP and one to the FBI. He said he was helping her find counsel to properly deal with the application. [ 21 ] Farrington AJ adjourned the matter to September 27, 2022 to permit the plaintiff an opportunity to retain counsel and provide a reply affidavit.

Farrington AJ directed that on the next appearance, Dale Richardson could appear virtually (by video) for Kaysha Richardson if no counsel was retained by then. [ 22 ] Discussions ensued during the August 19 th hearing about service of further documents in the charging order application by email. Farrington AJ asked Dale Richardson about directing further service by email both to the plaintiff’s email address and Dale Richardson’s email address.

Dale Richardson stated he was prepared to receive service of documents on behalf of the plaintiff to his email address and that the plaintiff did not want to have contact with her former counsel. Farrington AJ acceded to the suggestion and

directed: Service of the application materials in this matter can be served on the Respondent by email sent to Dale Richardson at: unity@****.**** [domain name redacted by Eamon J] [ 23 ] When the matter was heard on September 27, 2002 Dale Richardson again appeared by video for the plaintiff. Farrington AJ granted a charging order.

He further directed: This Order, and any subsequent documents including the Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer of Record, can be served on the Respondent, by email sent to Dale Richardson at: unity@****.**** [domain name redacted by Eamon J] [ 24 ] In late November 2022, Pipella Law served notices of withdrawal as counsel on their former client (the plaintiff) in the manner approved by Farrington AJ and on counsel for the defendants in the three actions as required by the Alberta Rules of Court, Rule 2.29(1)(a). These notices provide a last known residential address for the plaintiff in South Carolina, USA.

When Pipella Law sent copies of these notices to counsel for the defendants in the three actions on November 22, 2022, it also informed them by letter of a personal email address for the plaintiff. [ 25 ] As mentioned, this Court has found Dale Richardson to be a vexatious litigant. Among other things, Dale Richardson has employed the plaintiff as a litigation proxy in some of his actions in this Court and the Federal Court of Canada ( Richardson #3 at para 29-33 ).

This Court imposed interim court access restrictions on Dale Richardson commencing March 29, 2022 ( Richardson #1 ) and on the plaintiff commencing April 14, 2022 ( Richardson #3 ), and final orders on November 3, 2022 ( Richardson #8 ). [ 26 ] In mid-September 2022, Dale Richardson filed materials under the plaintiff’s name in the actions commenced by the plaintiff against Schafer and Wallace ( Richardson v Schafer, 2022 ABKB 645 [ Richardson #7 ]). In describing these materials, ACJ Rooke stated: [7] The address and email information matches that of Mr. Richardson.

The plain language of the Affidavit thus is that Mr. Richardson is filing materials under Ms. Richardson’s name, despite Ms. Richardson having legal representation in the Kaysha v Schafer and Kaysha v Wallace matters. I will not attempt to summarize the content of Mr. Richardson’s Affidavit for several reasons. One is that it amounts to five volumes. Second, the content of the September 14, 2022 Affidavit follows Mr. Richardson’s pattern of making bizarre conspiratorial claims and allegations, examples of which are found in Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 235 at paras 2-11 .

The September 14, 2022 Affidavit continues this pattern, alleging, among many other things, that: • Mr. Richardson has been tortured by various actors, and will be killed; • Mr. Richardson has conducted unique and critical research into the COVID-19 and Monkeypox viruses; • the “SARS-Cov-2” virus is “... a biological weapon ...”; • that Mr.

Richardson’s criminal offense complaints against me, other justices of this Court, and judges of the Saskatchewan and Federal courts are ignored and suppressed; • this all somehow relates to child trafficking, and “... interfered with the territorial integrity of Canada and the United States ...” and • “... I have been the only dark skinned black person in all of the matters that I have litigated in face to face. ...”. [8] What Mr. Richardson’s Affidavit does not do is actually depose of information related to the Kaysha v Schafer and Kaysha v Wallace lawsuits.

Instead, the Affidavit is about him, his numerous and strange complaints, and baseless conspiratorial beliefs, but not the actual related litigation. [ 27 ] The Court found that Dale Richardson was “falsely and spuriously attempting to characterize himself as the representative of Kaysha Richardson” ( Richardson #7 at para 9 ) and “had, in effect, commandeered his daughter’s lawsuits to advance his own agenda and objectives, and his claims about bioweapons, torture, murder, and Masons” ( Richardson #8 at para 17 ).

The Court struck these materials from the Court files, except for the purpose of providing the documentary basis for the decision. [ 28 ] In late September 2022 a person named Astra filed “Notices of Appeal of Applications Judge’s Judgment or Order” in the three actions. The notice of appeal document does not specify the decision appealed from, but it appears from the files the only decision to which it could relate is Farrington AJ’s charging order. In early October, 2022, an unidentified person filed an affidavit of service document in these actions.

These documents identify a physical address in Saskatchewan care of Dale Richardson and Dale Richardson’s unity email address (mentioned in para 23 above) as the plaintiff’s address for service. ACJ Rooke found that “Astra” appears to be “Astra Richardson-Pereira” [Ms. Richardson-Pereira], who self-identifies as Mr. Richardson’s sister” ( Richardson #8 at para 19-20 ). [ 29 ] As to the affidavit of service document, ACJ Rooke observed: [24] The content and exhibits to the October 4, 2022 document are difficult to understand.

For example, paragraph 3 of the Affidavit reads: The service to Dale Richardson is necessary because Kaysha Faith Richardson has filed for asylum in the United States in part because of Derek Allchurch trying to coerce her to return to people who tortured her. [Sic.] [25] Attached exhibits include: 1. partial copies of conspiratorial “Reports” generated by Mr. Richardson, that each are several thousand pages long, 2. an email denouncing me as a criminal, and reporting me to law enforcement, and

3. correspondence to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that reports that Amy Groothius, the Registrar of that Court, is engaged in bioterrorism, child trafficking for sexual exploitation, torture, treason, and crimes against humanity. [ 30 ] In Richardson #8 , ACJ Rooke found that Dale Richardson “had, in effect, commandeered his daughter’s lawsuits to advance his own agenda and objectives, and his claims about bioweapons, torture, murder, and Masons” (para 17); appeared at the application for the charging order acting for the plaintiff contrary to

section 106 of the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 (para 16); conducted himself in an abusive fashion at the application for the charging order (para 18); and, conducted himself in an abusive and intimidating fashion toward Court staff in trying to get the notices of appeal filed (para 21). [ 31 ] ACJ Rooke struck out the notice of appeal and affidavit of service documents, except for the purposes of providing the documentary basis for the decision, on November 3, 2022 ( Richardson #8 at para 67 ; Irregular Document Management Order, November 3, 2022 , para 1 – 2). [ 32 ] ACJ Rooke found Dale Richardson to be a vexatious litigant and subjected him to final Court access and Court communication restrictions ( Richardson #8 at para 40, 48, 49 ; Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order, November 3, 2022, actions 2201 02896 and 2201 03422). [ 33 ] ACJ Rooke imposed the same Court access and Court communications restrictions on a number of individuals including the plaintiff and Astra Richardson-Perriera [Pereira], with the following exception: except where the listed individual is: 1. a properly named party to the litigation, and 2. if a candidate filing is intended to initiate litigation, or a litigation step, that litigation or litigation step has been granted leave by a justice of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. ( Richardson #8 at para 55 ; Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order, November 3, 2022, actions 2201 02896 and 2201 03422 at para 14). [ 34 ] This direction permits Kaysha Richardson to file documents in the three actions in response to steps taken by the defendants but requires her to obtain permission to file documents initiating a step in her actions ( Richardson #8 at para 56 ; Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order, November 3, 2022, actions 2201 02896 and 2201 03422 at para 15). [ 35 ] With respect to the plaintiff, ACJ Rooke observed in Richardson #8 : [62] When I issued Richardson #7 , I intentionally limited the negative consequences of Mr.

Richardson’s actions to himself. It was then unclear to what degree, if any, Kaysha was involved in Mr. Richardson’s actions in the Kaysha lawsuits. For all I know, Mr. Richardson has unilaterally taken it upon himself to intrude into these matters as a busybody. His daughter may have no or incomplete knowledge of what Mr. Richardson has done. [63] That said, Kaysha has previously operated as a litigation proxy of Mr. Richardson in lawsuits started and pursued in Alberta by Mr. Richardson: Richardson #3 . Kaysha is, therefore, not an uninvolved person. [64] The Order in

Part V(

D) of this Decision has the effect of staying all three of Kaysha lawsuits. No further documents may be filed on these matters, except as authorized by this Decision. If Kaysha seeks to pursue the Kaysha lawsuits, she must obtain leave of this Court, pursuant to the procedure in

Part V. Kaysha may only submit a leave to continue litigation request by registered mail to my Office, or the Office of my designate. [65] I very strongly recommend that Kaysha consult with a legal professional prior to making that leave application. Kaysha should exercise great caution in relation to claims from her father.

I stress to Kaysha, that if she were to make an application to continue her litigation, and that application was rejected, then that would terminate her lawsuit or lawsuits, and Kaysha may be subject to court ordered costs paid to the opposing parties. [1] If Kaysha cannot afford a lawyer, then she should contact a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, the University of Calgary Student Legal Assistance, or Student Legal Services of Edmonton (contact information is available on the Canadian Judicial Council’s Self-Represented Litigant Civil Handbook, under “Resources” and Alberta (pp 92-95, cjc- ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2021/Civil%20Handbook%20-%20EN%20MASTER%202021-10-19.pdf). [ 36 ] As mentioned, ACJ Rooke directed that if the plaintiff did not seek leave to continue the actions within six months of the Order, the defendants could apply on notice strike out those portions of the actions that relate to the plaintiff Kaysha Richardson as an abuse of process. [ 37 ] ACJ Rooke’s formal orders of November 3, 2022 provide that they be served on Dale Richardson, Kaysha Richardson, and Astra Richardson-Pereira (and others in the case of the Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order) by sending them to two specific email addresses set out in those orders: the unity email address mentioned in para 23 above, and dale.richardson@****.**** [domain name redacted by Eamon J].

Both addresses appear to be associated with Dale Richardson. [ 38 ] The Court files include an order dated November 22, 2022, whereby the appeals (previously struck out under the November 3, 2022 decision) were dismissed in morning civil chambers. The plaintiff’s former counsel (respondent to appeals from the charging order) appeared in chambers on that day and informed the Court that the appeals previously had been struck or dismissed. The Court stated it would sign the formal orders to reflect the purported appeals were dealt with in the earlier decision.

No one appeared for Kaysha Richardson on that appearance.

[ 39 ] The plaintiff has not sought permission to proceed with the actions following ACJ Rooke’s November 3, 2022 orders. Whether the plaintiff has notice of this application. [ 40 ] Any documents purporting to be filed on the plaintiff’s behalf in the three actions and representations made on her behalf since mid-2022 come from Dale Richardson, a vexatious litigant. ACJ Rooke observed with respect to filings in the three actions, in Richardson #8 , that: [62] ... For all I know, Mr. Richardson has unilaterally taken it upon himself to intrude into these matters as a busybody.

His daughter may have no or incomplete knowledge of what Mr. Richardson has done. [ 41 ] Kaysha Richardson was properly served with the charging order applications at her last known physical address and her personal email address by her former counsel because they were send by tracked courier package (a form of recorded mail under Rule 11.22) and she actually signed for the documents (para 19 above). Dale Richardson then attended the applications on her behalf.

The direction in the charging order to serve further documents in the three actions to Dale Richardson’s email address appears to stem from Dale Richardson’s representations to Farrington AJ on August 19, 2022 that he could accept service for the plaintiff and she did not want contact with her former counsel. [ 42 ] The defendants served their application on the plaintiff by: (

a) Emailing the materials to the plaintiff’s attention at the two specific email addresses set out in ACJ Rooke’s November 3, 2022 Orders (mentioned in para 37 above). (

b) Mailing (by a product known as express post) the application and supporting affidavits to the plaintiff at the physical address in South Carolina USA set out in her former lawyer’s notice of withdrawal. [ 43 ] The defendants apparently did not send the application to Kaysha Richardson’s personal email address that had been provided to them by her former counsel on November 22, 2022. [ 44 ] Dale Richardson responded to the defendants’ application by emails on August 1, 2023 including a “cease and desist” demand that the senders never email him again, various assertions about participants in the litigation such as the judge and lawyers, and a claim that Kaysha Richardson has not been properly served.

As is the case with all the proceedings since August 2022 in the three actions the plaintiff has not directly responded by letter, email, or retaining counsel. [ 45 ] When I questioned service during the chambers hearing, counsel observed that Farrington AJ directed in the charging order that further communications in the matter be directed to one of Dale Richardson’s email addresses (para 23 above).

I note the November 22, 2022 order dismissing the purported appeals from the charging order, repeats the same service direction contained in the charging order and the conclusions I set out below apply equally to that direction. [ 46 ] I am not satisfied that Farrington AJ’s charging order constitutes a general direction for service of all subsequent process in the three actions. [ 47 ] Kaysha Richardson’s former lawyer successfully served the plaintiff with the charging order application, and I infer she asked Dale Richardson to appear for her in the charging order application because he could not have otherwise become aware of it and appeared in it. [ 48 ] However, it is doubtful that his authority impliedly extended to agreeing to directions for service of process in the underlying actions in contrast to matters between the plaintiff and her former counsel.

There is no indication in the FTRs that Dale Richardson purported to represent her in the underlying actions, nor could he legally do so. The discussion in Court concerned service of documents in relation to matters between the plaintiff and her former counsel, not service of documents by the defendants who were not present at the applications. [ 49 ] Farrington AJ’s service direction did not define the matter in which further service could be effected on the plaintiff by emailing Dale Richardson.

The direction might apply to any ongoing steps in the underlying action or, in contrast, any ongoing proceedings between the plaintiff and her former counsel respecting the charging order and the withdrawal of her lawyer. [ 50 ] I do not think it is likely that Farrington AJ intended to make a substitutional service order for further steps generally in the underlying litigation. [ 51 ] Rule 11.28 permits a substitutional service order where there is evidence that serving a party is impractical, proposing an alternative method of service, and explaining why the proposed method is likely to bring the matter to the attention of the party against whom the order is sought. [ 52 ] The procedure records do not indicate such an affidavit was filed.

There was no evidence that it would be impractical to have opposing litigants follow normal practice by sending court-filed documents by recorded mail to the plaintiff’s last known physical address or to some known active email address that complied with Rule 11.21 or was authorized for use by the Court.

In the absence of Farrington AJ’s service direction specifically stating it applied to service by defendants in the underlying action, I decline to construe it to cover such steps. [ 53 ] Is there any other potentially effective service of the present application? [ 54 ] The answer is yes, service by recorded mail.

[55] Rule 11.22 permits service of a non-commencement document by recorded mail, addressed to the party at the address forservice provided in the most recently filed document in the action, in which case service is effected the earlier of the dateacknowledgment of receipt is signed and seven days after the date on which the recorded mail is sent. [56] “Recorded mail” means a form of document delivery by mail or courier in which receipt of the document must beacknowledged in writing as specified in

Part 11 of the rules (Alberta Rules of Court,

Definitions, “recorded mail”). “... [T]here are twoavailable methods of “recorded mail”: one tracks delivery and one that requires acknowledgement of receipt by the recipient with asignature” (Brace v McKen, 2019 ABCA 135 at para 12).

Express post is a form of recorded mail (Brace at para 17). [57] Further: [16] Even though Rule 11.22 provides for service by “recorded mail”, sub-section 2 of the Rule deems service is effected underthis Rule on the earlier of the date of acknowledgment of receipt, or 7 days after the “recorded mail” is sent regardless of anacknowledgment. (Brace at para 16). [58] The defendants sent, on August 3, 2023, a copy of the application documents by tracked express post addressed to the plaintiffat her last known physical address in South Carolina.

On August 11, 2023, the postal service actually left a card at that address indicatingwhere the item could be picked up. The item was not picked up. The express post package is recorded mail under the Rules of Court. [59] Did this amount to valid service? [60] There are three issues here. First, is recorded mail service to the United States of America affected by the Convention on theService Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (15 November 1965) (Hague Convention onService)? Second, was the recorded mail sent to the correct address?

Third, was service defeated because the recorded mail package wasnot picked up? [61] I will deal with the Hague Convention on Service because Dale Richardson raised the issue in his email response of August 1,2023 to service of the present application. He claimed, among other things: Since Kaysha is in the United States and that you are well aware that she is in the United States then the Hague Convention rules ofservice applies to these matters.

Kaysha has never been properly served for the Hague Convention since she has entered into the UnitedStates on October 1, 2020.... [62] I do not agree with Dale Richardson’s assertion. [63] First, there is no evidence that Dale Richardson or his company which hosts his email addresses are in the United States, sothe Hague Convention on Service has no potential application to past service on Kaysha Richardson by email to Dale Richardson asdirected in the ACJ Rooke and Farrington AJ orders. [64] Second, the application is not a commencement document to which

Part 11, Division 8, of the Rules of Court applies.Consequently, the Rules do not require service under the Hague Convention on Service (Rule 11.26(1)(a)). [65] Third, service of foreign judicial documents by private mail is permissible in the territories of some of the contracting partiesto the Hague Convention on Service (Hague Convention on Service,

Article 10(a)), including the United States of America (TableReflecting Applicability of Articles 8(2), 10(a)(

b) and (c), 15(2) and 16(3) of the HCCH 1965 Service Convention, available online athttps://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/service ). [66] Fourth, no order for service ex juris was required because the application is not a commencement document under the Rulesof Court. [67] Was the South Carolina address the correct address? [68] Generally speaking, a party’s address for service is taken from the most recently filed documents in the action. In my opinion,such document must be filed by the party or their authorized representative.

As an example, a lawyer entitled to practice in the Court hasimplied or ostensible authority to provide an address for service and to provide a last known address in a notice of withdrawal thatbecomes a party’s address for service under Rule 2.29 until changed as occurred in the present case. [69] It is not apparent to me that a relative or purported non-lawyer representative of a self-represented party can create or changean address for service, without some evidence that the party themself acted in some way to give rise to actual, ostensible or impliedauthority in the purported agent.

Even then, such actions might be precluded and ineffective under

section 106 of the Legal ProfessionAct. [70] In this case the most recently filed documents were those by Dale Richardson in late September and early October 2022. Theypurport to provide a physical address for service in Saskatchewan and Dale Richarson’s email address (which could then be used underRule 11.21). [71] These documents do not provide a valid address for service. First, ACJ Rooke struck these documents out in November 2022as an abuse of process. They had no legal effect when the defendants sought to serve their application in August 2023.

Second, there isno evidence that the plaintiff authorized these documents to be filed in her actions. [72] The next earlier address for service on the file for the plaintiff was her last known physical address in South Carolina set outin the notice of withdrawal by her counsel. Her former counsel served the notices of withdrawal on the plaintiff pursuant to the order of

Farrington AJ. That order was not successfully appealed and is valid as an order of a superior court.

The notice of withdrawal was, andremains, effective to provide an address for service for the plaintiff (Rule 2.29(3)). [73] Therefore the correct address is the South Carolina address. [74] Finally, was the express post to that address defeated because the package was not picked up? [75] Service by recorded mail is not invalid only by reason that the addressee refuses to accept the mail or no longer resides or isotherwise not present at the address and has not provided the postal service with a current mailing address (Rule 11.2 (c), (d)).

Service ofprocess on the address for service is recognized as good service and it is important that the parties to litigation be able to rely on theaddress for service that is given (Sandhu v MEG Place LP Investment Corporation, 2012 ABCA 266 at para 21, 24).

In Keeping vKeeping, 2021 ABQB 892 at para 27 – 32 the Court found that service of a relocation letter in a divorce matter by recorded mail waseffective although the recipient had not picked up the item after delivery of a notice card to the recipient. [76] I am satisfied that service was effective under Rule 11.22 and should be deemed good and sufficient under Rule 11.27(1). [77] Adequate notice was left at the Plaintiff’s address for service in South Carolina, informing of the means by which the packagecould be picked up.

The package included the application form and supporting affidavits exhibiting ACJ Rooke’s November 3, 2022decision, ACJ Rooke’s November 3, 2022 Irregular Document Management Order, and a procedure record for each action that wouldhave informed Kaysha Richardson exactly what had been filed in her actions and when. [78] Refusing or failing to pick up the recorded mail does not defeat service. Any risk in failing to pick up the express postpackage should be on the plaintiff not the defendants: [18] ...

A plaintiff who commences an action and gives an address for service must appreciate that documents will be served upon him atthat address, whether he is there or not and if he does not provide the postal service with a current mailing address, he cannot say he hasnot been served in accordance with the Rules. (Brace at para 18). [79] I wish to note that, if I had found the documents filed in late September/early October 2022 had legal effect and KayshaRichardson’s service address was care of Dale Richardson including the provided email address, I would have validated service underRules 11.21 and 11.27 because the defendants also emailed the application materials to Dale Richardson.

Are the actions an abuse of process? [80] On their face, the pleadings in the actions do not indicate the claims are an abuse of process though the amounts of damagesclaimed seem high. The defendants have not filed evidence to show the motor vehicle accident claims were fraudulent or completelyunfounded. Further, ACJ Rooke did not find that the abusive documents filed in the three actions were authorized by Kaysha Richardson. [81] Nevertheless, the plaintiff is the subject of court access restrictions by reason of her past participation as a litigation proxy forDale Richardson.

Such misconduct is serious: [29] Some abusive litigants respond to court litigation and litigant management steps by recruiting other individuals to conductlitigation as a mechanism to evade the Court’s defensive and control efforts. These “proxy litigants” are a comparatively uncommon, butvery serious variation of, abusive tactics to sabotage court litigation management: Unrau #2 at paras 686-687.

I adopt the reasoning andconclusion of Stratas JA, in Virgo v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 167, that when an abusive litigant deploys a litigation proxyto evade court orders and procedure to manage that abusive litigant, that misconduct is a very serious matter, and negative consequencesmay properly result for both the abusive litigant and the litigation proxy. (Richardson #3 at para 29). [82] One of the consequences of court access restrictions of the kind imposed on the plaintiff by ACJ Rooke is: “... [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, application for permission to appeal refused for lack of jurisdiction 2018 ABCA 111, leave toappeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019).

This proposition has been accepted in numerous Alberta cases, of which a recentexample is Uhrik v Barata, 2023 ABKB 517 at para 8. [83] Striking litigation is a significant decision for the plaintiff because it will deprive her of claims that might have merit. I amconcerned over the possibility that service on Dale Richardson’s email addresses might not have actually brought the Irregular DocumentManagement Order containing the 6 month limitation to the plaintiff’s attention.

I must balance the interests of a currently self-represented person with fairness to the defendants in being subjected to presumptively abusive litigation. [84] In my opinion, fairness to the plaintiff has been respected. (

a) She must have known her counsel was withdrawing, because the law firm’s affidavit in support of the charging orderapplication states they so informed her in August 202 -- about two years before the defendants served the present application -- and hercounsel actually served her with the application for a charging order about one year before the defendants sought to serve her with theirapplication.

She should reasonably expect that the opposing parties would periodically need to send her documents relating to her threeAlberta actions unless she retained and instructed new counsel qualified to practice law in Alberta. Any failure or omission in picking upthe express post package should be attributed to the plaintiff not the defendants (Brace at para 18).

(

b) Dale Richardson claimed on August 1, 2023 that Kaysha Richardson had new counsel of record and emailed the application documents to one Mohammad Shair. There is no evidence whether this individual can practice law in Alberta. He appears to be an American attorney. He could retain Canadian or Alberta counsel, but there is no evidence that he was actually retained to assist on the application except the out of Court assertions by Dale Richardson. If he was consulted, he did not contact the defendants’ counsel although provided with their email contact information. (

c) Kaysha Richardson was served notice of the present application in accordance with the Rules of Court. Even if the Irregular Document Management Order had not actually come to her attention, the application documents contained the order and a copy of ACJ Rooke’s reasons for the decision in Richardson #8 . She had a fair opportunity to know the grounds for the present application including the history of the two orders of November 3, 2022. (

d) Four full months have now passed since notice of the express post package was delivered to her address for service on August 11, 2023. (

e) Notwithstanding the above, the plaintiff has not responded to the application; not reached out for more time to retain counsel, seek legal information or prepare responses; not sought court permission to apply for any other relief such as retroactively extending the time (under subrules 13.5(2) and 13.5(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court) to respond to the Irregular Document Management Order; and, not expressed a challenge or objection to either of the November 3, 2022 orders. [ 85 ] In these circumstances, there is a strong presumption under the Thompson principle that the three actions are not legitimate and have become an abuse of the Court’s process.

In November 2022 ACJ Rooke imposed Court access restrictions on the plaintiff in view of her activities as a litigation proxy for Dale Richardson, stayed the three actions out of a concern that she would conduct them in an abusive fashion, and called on her to justify proceeding with the actions within 6 months. Sufficient time has passed for a fair opportunity to rectify matters. The defendants have acted appropriately under the Rules of Court to bring their application to her attention and should not be further subjected to litigation that is presumed abusive. The actions should now be struck out.

Conclusion and Directions [ 86 ] Service of the application and supporting affidavits is deemed good and sufficient. [ 87 ] Actions 2001 14323 and 1701 17295 are struck out. The plaintiff’s claims in action 2001 16974 are struck out and Kaysha Richardson is removed as a plaintiff in that action. [ 88 ] As to service, Dale Richardson emphatically stated in his August 1, 2023 email responses that he is not to be further communicated with in relation to these actions.

While his cease and desist demands have no effect on the Court, I see no reason to direct service on a vexatious litigant who is not a party to the actions when the plaintiff has a valid address for service and her own email address. [ 89 ] The defendants must serve a copy of this Endorsement and the formal Order on Kaysha Richardson not later than January 21, 2024 as follows: (

a) Sending not later than December 21, 2023 a copy by recorded mail to her last known address for service set out in the notice of withdrawal filed in the actions on November 21, 2022 (action 2001 16974) or November 22, 2022 (action 1701 17295 and 2001 14323). [ 90 ] Given the short timelines for a potential appeal, it is fair that the defendants inform the plaintiff as best they can that service of documents is coming to her.

Therefore, the Defendants shall email the Plaintiff not later than December 21, 2023 informing her that the Defendants have sent documents to her by recorded mail for service on her, to her South Carolina address set out in the filed Notice of Withdrawal of her counsel of record in this action. The email shall be sent to the personal email address provided by her former counsel Mr Allchurch in their letter to defendants’ counsel dated November 22, 2022 (included in Exhibit “A” to the Affidavit of Service filed November 24, 2022) as specified in the formal order filed with this Endorsement.

The email shall include a warning that service of the documents will be effective 7 days after the date they are sent whether or not the plaintiff refuses them or fails to pick them up, and any further documents for service will be served in the same manner unless she establishes a new address for service under the Alberta Rules of Court or the Court otherwise directs. [ 91 ] The defendants must file an affidavit of service proving compliance with the directions in para 89, as well an affidavit proving compliance with para 90, not later than 21 days of sending the documents by recorded mail.

Service is deemed effective on the day determined under Rule 11.21 regardless whether the recorded mail package is picked up. [ 92 ] Each defendant is entitled to costs of the plaintiff’s action including costs of this application. They shall file for my attention, through the sharepoint system proposed bills of costs, any supporting affidavit or other materials, and a brief letter submission, not later than January 31, 2024. The Jorgensen defendants should include a submission of how to allocate to the plaintiff any portion, if at all, of costs for steps taken against the plaintiffs jointly.

The defendants must send by recorded mail a copy of their submissions to the plaintiff in accordance with para 89 of this Endorsement not later than February 2, 2024. [ 93 ] The plaintiff must, personally or through a lawyer entitled to practice law in the Province of Alberta, file through the Clerk’s Office a response, if any, to costs submissions and serve a copy on the defendants’ counsel of record in each action by an independent unrelated process server (or such other manner of service agreed to in writing by defendant’s counsel in advance of service) not later than March 8, 2024 and file a proper affidavit of service through the Clerk’s Office within 7 days after service.

Submissions, filings or affidavits from any individual named in para 55 of Richardson #8 or para 14 of the Court Access and Communications Restrictions Order (including Dale Richardson, Astra Richardson-Periera, or Agatha Richardson) other than the plaintiff will not be accepted or reviewed.

[ 94 ] Mindful of my obligations set in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 to provide information to self-represented litigants, such as Kaysha Richardson, concerning their litigation options: (

a) If Kaysha Richardson disagrees with this outcome, her remedy is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Appeals must be commenced in accordance with the Alberta Rules of Court, available online at www.canlii.org and she is responsible to ascertain the applicable timelines and steps required to commence a valid appeal. The Alberta Court of Appeal offers general information about commencing an appeal including forms and frequently asked questions, on its internet site at https://albertacourts.ca/ca/registry Commencing an appeal does not, by itself, stay the decisions in this Endorsement. (

b) If Kaysha Richardson believes that she failed to appear in this application or the proceedings before ACJ Rooke by mistake or accident she might also have remedies under

Part 9, Division 3 of the Alberta Rules of Court, available online at www.Canlii.org (

c) The Court recommends that Kaysha Richardson obtain advice of a lawyer qualified to practice in Alberta as soon as possible if considering pursuing any of the above remedies, because there are timelines applicable to seeking such remedies, the Court imposed access restrictions on her may affect her ability to pursue such remedies or delay pursuing such remedies due to any need to seek Court permission in advance of filing, the remedies are complex, and if unsuccessful in pursuing such remedies the Court may order her to pay significant amounts of costs to opposing parties. (

d) Kaysha Richardson is recommended to obtain legal advice before responding to costs submissions of the defendants, because the amounts of costs that can be awarded by an Alberta court upon conclusion of an action can be substantial and such awards might be enforceable against her outside of Alberta or outside of Canada. (

e) I remind Kaysha Richardson of ACJ’s Rooke’s recommendation that she consult available information including handbooks for self-represented litigants (see para 35 above). [ 95 ] The Court will prepare the formal Order and release the filed copy with this Endorsement.

In addition to the above service directions, counsel for the defendants are responsible to send a courtesy copy to Pipella Law attention of Mr Allchurch and to the co- plaintiff or their counsel of record if any. [ 96 ] The Clerks shall send a copy of this Endorsement and formal Order to Associate Chief Justice Nixon in the event same is required for ongoing litigation management under the various orders issued by retired ACJ Rooke.

Heard on the 25 th day of August, 2023, written correspondence from defendants’ counsel providing affidavits of service dated August 31, 2023 and September 2, 2023; file review conducted December 12, December 15, and December 19, 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 19 th day of December, 2023. J.T. Eamon J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: B Cowitz for the Defendants/Applicants in action 1701 17295 Erin Crosley for the Defendants/Applicants in action 2001 14323 Dana Hagg for the Defendants/Applicants in action 2001 16974 No appearance by or for the Respondent Kaysha Richardson

_______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Endorsement of The Honourable Justice J.T. Eamon _______________________________________________________ Para 87 – corrected spelling of plaintiff’s name and corrected action numbers. Para 94 – corrected spelling of plaintiff’s name