Rondeau v Paraniuk, 2024 ABKB 73

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rondeau v Paraniuk, 2024 ABKB 73 Date: 20240209 Docket: 2303 18761 Registry: Edmonton Between: Greg Paraniuk Proposed Applicant - and - Sharon Rondeau Proposed Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon _______________________________________________________ [ 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 where Mr. Paraniuk obtains permission from the Court - “leave” - to conduct those steps. [ 2 ] Mr. Paraniuk is currently involved in a dispute with other individuals who live in the same apartment building as Mr. Paraniuk.

Details on this conflict are reported in Jorgensen v Paraniuk , 2023 ABKB 618 [ Jorgensen #1 ]. On November 3, 2023, this Court granted Mr. Paraniuk leave to apply to expand several existing Restraining Orders. [ 3 ] Mr. Paraniuk on January 23, 2024 by email requested leave to make an Application before the Court for substitutional service of Sharon Rondeau [Ms. Rondeau]. I am responding to this leave request as an Administrative Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Briefly, in his materials Mr.

Paraniuk deposes that: 1) he has attempted to serve the filed Application and Affidavit authorized in Jorgensen #1 upon Ms. Rondeau via registered mail,

as instructed in Jorgensen #1 at para 19 ; 2) the registered mail was refused because the recipient had “Moved / Unknown” or “Item refused by recipient. Item being returned to sender.”; and 3) he has observed Ms. Rondeau at the address where the registered mail was rejected. [ 4 ] Mr. Paraniuk proposes that the unserved Application and Affidavit are served on Ms.

Rondeau via substitutional service, in this case by an apartment building security guard. [ 5 ] The law on when the Court will grant leave to a litigant or candidate litigant subject to court access restrictions was reviewed in Jorgensen #1 at paras 8-15 . Briefly, Mr. Paraniuk needs to: (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. [ 6 ] In this instance I conclude that, in light of Jorgensen #1 and Mr. Paraniuk’s materials received on January 23, 2024, leave should be granted to Mr.

Paraniuk to file his proposed Application for substitutional service. I note to Mr. Paraniuk that if he proposes that a third party, such as the building security guard, take steps involved with service that Mr. Paraniuk’s Application would benefit from an Affidavit that establishes the security guard agrees to participate in the proposed substitutional service process. The Court is not likely to imposes obligations on an uninvolved third party who is not before the Court. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 9 th day of February 2024. D.B. Nixon A .C.J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances by submissions: Greg Paraniuk Self-represented Litigant