Richardson v Richardson, 2022 SKCA 133

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Citation: Richardson v Richardson , 2022 SKCA 133 Date: 2022-11-18 Docket: CACV3745 Between: Dale Richardson Appellant (Respondent) And Kimberley Richardson Respondent (Petitioner) Docket: CACV3798 Between: Dale James Richardson Appellant (Respondent) And Kimberley Anne Richardson Respondent (Petitioner) Docket: CACV4048 Between: Dale J.

Richardson Applicant/Appellant (Respondent) And Kimberley Anne Richardson Respondent/Respondent (Petitioner) And Amy Groothuis, Unknown registrars of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Justice Zuk, the Registrar of Titles, and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan Respondents And Assistant Commissioner Rhonda Blackmore of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (F-Division), Jessica Karam, the Ministry of Health, and the Saskatchewan Health Authority Respondents Before: Richards C.J.S., Schwann and McCreary JJ.A.

Disposition: CACV3745 and CACV3798 – Appeals dismissed CACV4048 – Applications dismissed Written reasons by: The Honourable Chief Justice Richards In concurrence: The Honourable Madam Justice Schwann The Honourable Madam Justice McCreary On appeal from: DIV 70 of 2020, Battleford Appeal heard: November 3, 2022 Counsel: Dale Richardson appearing on his own behalf Patricia Meiklejohn for Kimberley Richardson on CACV3745, CACV3798 and CACV4048 Justin Stevenson for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Amy Groothuis and the Registrar of Titles on CACV4048 Cailen Brust for Rhonda Blackmore and Jessica Karam on CACV4048 Chantelle Eisner for the Saskatchewan Health Authority on CACV4048 Richards C.J.S.

I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This decision addresses four matters: two show cause applications and two applications for prerogative relief. [ 2 ] The show cause applications concern appeals initiated by Dale Richardson from decisions made by what was then the Court of Queen’s Bench in family law proceedings involving him and his former wife, the respondent Kimberley Richardson. As explained below, both of those appeals must be dismissed because Mr. Richardson has failed to establish that it is in the interests of justice that he be

allowed to prosecute them to a conclusion. [ 3 ] The applications for prerogative relief concern various grievances that Mr. Richardson has against the alleged actions of a number of individuals ranging from the Registrar of Titles to an Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As explained below, those applications must be dismissed as well. II. THE SHOW CAUSE APPLICATIONS A. Appeal CACV3745 [ 4 ] On December 11, 2020, a Queen’s Bench judge sitting in Chambers made an order dismissing Mr. Richardson’s applications to: (

a) vary an interim parenting order, and (

b) dispense with service of documents. The Chambers judge also made an order requiring Mr. Richardson to pay child support. [ 5 ] Mr. Richardson filed a ten-page notice of appeal dated December 13, 2020, by which he took issue with “the entire Order”. Since that time, Mr.

Richardson has failed to successfully complete any of the steps mandated by The Court of Appeal Rules [ Rules ] for moving his appeal forward; while he served and filed an appeal book and written argument on January 31, 2022, he subsequently demanded that those documents be removed from the Court file when he was dissatisfied with the form and content of the resulting filing fee receipt. The upshot is that he has not filed an appeal book nor a factum or written argument. He has, however, brought two applications in this Court for prerogative relief.

They were dismissed both in Chambers and on appeal to the Court proper. [ 6 ] A pre-hearing conference was held on March 9, 2022. At that time, Mr. Richardson advised of his intention to do nothing on this file until he got a “protection order” from the courts in Alberta, without explaining what any such order might be or might achieve. He has done nothing since then to move matters forward.

A show cause hearing was scheduled by way of a notice dated September 27, 2022. [ 7 ] The approach that this Court takes in addressing show cause applications was summarized as follows in 6517633 Canada Ltd. v Norton (Rural Municipality) , 2019 SKCA 45 [ Norton ]: [16] Accordingly, as something of a restatement of the approach described in paragraph 14 of Maurice Law , let me confirm that the core question in deciding whether to dismiss an appeal as abandoned pursuant to Rule 46(2) is whether it is in the interests of justice to make such an order.

If an appeal is manifestly without merit, that will be determinative of the inquiry. Otherwise, the full range of relevant factors should be weighed and considered. Those factors will generally include, but not necessarily be limited to: (

a) the adequacy of the appellant’s reason for the delay in moving matters forward; (

b) the extent to which the respondent has expressed concern about the delay or attempted to have the appellant advance the appeal; (

c) the progress, if any, the appellant has made in preparing the materials necessary to perfect the appeal; (

d) whether, and the extent to which, the respondent has been prejudiced by the appellant’s failure to move the appeal forward or will be prejudiced if the appeal is allowed to proceed; and (

e) whether the appellant has the willingness and the capacity to comply with the deadlines that might be imposed by the Court in relation to the perfection of the appeal. [ 8 ] All of this was explained to Mr. Richardson at the oral show cause hearing and he was then given an opportunity to address these considerations and show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Mr.

Richardson did not speak to any of the considerations identified in Norton and chose, instead, to make various submissions about matters such as child trafficking, “bio weapons”, the “ Convention Against Torture ” and “The Engineering of Bioterrorism, Child Trafficking, Treason and the Crime of Aggression Update”, a document that he has authored. [ 9 ] I find that Mr. Richardson has failed to show cause why he should be allowed to carry on with this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs to Ms. Richardson fixed in the amount of $500 and payable forthwith. B.

Appeal CACV3798 [ 10 ] On February 19, 2021, a Queen’s Bench judge sitting in Chambers made an order directing the Registrar of Titles to transfer the title of what had been the Richardsons’ family home to two individuals. The house had been sold to them pursuant to a court order providing for its disposition. [ 11 ] Mr. Richardson filed a six-page notice of appeal on March 19, 2021. The style of cause was “DSR Karis Consulting Inc. v Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan and Kimberley Richardson” even though DSR Karis Consulting Inc. was not a party to the Chambers proceeding that gave rise to an appeal.

This led to various difficulties as the Registry attempted to assist Mr. Richardson to sort out this irregularity. Again, as in CACV3745, Mr. Richardson took none of the steps required by the Rules to advance his appeal; an attempt to file his written argument and appeal book likewise proved unsuccessful when Mr. Richardson considered that the receipt generated upon payment of the filing fee was incorrect. He has not successfully filed an appeal book nor a written argument or factum. [ 12 ] On March 23, 2021, almost immediately after filing his notice of appeal, Mr.

Richardson did, however, apply to a Chambers judge of this Court for a stay. He therein sought to bar the transfer of the title of the family home. That application was dismissed. Mr. Richardson also filed an application for prerogative relief on March 23, 2021. It was scheduled to be heard with the appeal proper and remains outstanding.

[ 13 ] A pre-hearing conference was held on March 9, 2022. As with CACV3745, Mr. Richardson advised that he intended to do nothing on the file until he received a “protection order” from the courts in Alberta. Subsequently, nothing further happened on the file. A show cause hearing was scheduled by way of a notice dated September 27, 2022. [ 14 ] Paralleling CACV3745, Mr. Richardson made no attempt to address the considerations identified in Norton when making his submissions to the Court.

Rather, he insisted that the appeal had been filed by DSR Karis Consulting Inc. and that he personally could not speak to it because he would thereby commit fraud. He advised that, as a person, he did not submit to the Court’s procedure and would be calling the police. [ 15 ] It follows from all of this that Mr. Richardson has failed to show cause why he should be allowed to carry on with his appeal. It is dismissed with costs to Ms. Richardson fixed in the amount of $500 and payable forthwith. III. THE APPLICATIONS FOR PREROGATIVE RELIEF [ 16 ] Dale J.

Richardson v Kimberley Anne Richardson , CACV4048, is an appeal that Mr. Richardson filed on July 25, 2022. It takes issue with a July 22, 2022, Queen’s Bench Chambers decision wherein, among other things, Zuk J. declined to vary the conditions of the interim order governing parenting issues concerning Mr. and Ms. Richardson’s child and granted Ms. Richardson a judgment for divorce. [ 17 ] Mr. Richardson has since filed two applications for prerogative relief under CACV4048. I will deal with each of them in turn. A. The First Application [ 18 ] Mr.

Richardson’s first application for prerogative relief was filed on September 11, 2022 [First Application]. It names as respondents (

a) Amy Groothuis, the Registrar of this Court, (b) “Unknown registrars” of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, (

c) Justice Zuk, (

d) the Registrar of Titles, and (

e) the Attorney General of Saskatchewan. The relief sought by Mr. Richardson is framed as follows: 168. This Motion for Writ of Mandamus Prohibition and Certiorari is made for 1. Compel the Registrar of Land Titles to deliver all information relating to the fraudulent transfer of the property located at 1292 95th, Street North Battleford, Saskatchewan, S9A 0G2, transfer the property located at 1292 95th Street North Battleford, SK back to the Applicant or any other party that the Applicant shall decide; 2. An order to compel Justice J.

Zuk to place the materials submitted by the Applicant by mail and received by the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan July 22, 2022 on the official court record; and the transmission he received from DSR Karis by way of fax on July 20, 2022 and any other material he has removed/excluded from the court record; recuse himself entirely from any matter relating to the Applicant; 3. An order to compel the Executive Council of Saskatchewan to; File and process the Application for Access for the Return of the Child Dated April 8, 2022; 4. An order to compel Amy Groothius to; Place all communications between Dale J.

Richardson on the court record; Place all evidence and documents previously filed or attempted to be filed by Dale J. Richardson or any of his affiliates on the court record; Recuse herself from any matter relating to Dale J. Richardson or any of his family members or affiliates; 5.

An order to compel the Attorney General of Saskatchewan to provide the Applicant with all the information requested in all of his access to information requests at no cost to the Applicant without any redaction; to pay any and all costs associated with this motion, or any of the orders associated with it, and for the maintenance, insurance and any other cost of the property at 1292 95th, Street North Battleford until the resolution of the Appeal and any incidental matters associated with the matters subject to the mandamus and/or the appeal; To pay the legal costs of Applicant incurred from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan failure to do the public duty required by the office of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

To pay the legal costs of the Applicant for any actions relating to this mandamus To pay the costs of a full report regarding the criminally negligent guidelines to the Applicant or other person that the Applicant shalldecide. 2. An Order prohibiting any registrar or agent thereof in the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan or the Court of Appeal forSaskatchewan from rejecting any document or any other evidence submitted by the Applicant for any reason; and 3. Prohibiting the registrar or any agent thereof in the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan from accepting any document fromKimberley A.

Richardson or any agent acting on her behalf without notice to the Applicant; 4. An order for a writ of Certiorari to examine the judicial actions of Justice J. Zuk and any other judge related to this matter; 5. An Order with dispensing with service and ordering electronic service for the Mandamus and CACV4048. [19] As the respondents point out, the first problem with Mr. Richardson’s application is that it ignores this Court’s well-establishedapproach to the exercise of its authority in relation to prerogative relief.

Section 11 of The Court of Appeal Act, 2000, SS 2000, c C-42.1,does, of course, provide that “[t]he court may, in its discretion, exercise original jurisdiction to grant relief in the nature of a prerogativewrit”. However, as was made clear to Mr. Richardson in dismissing his application for prerogative relief in Richardson v Richardson,2021 SKCA 58 [Richardson SKCA], the Court exercises that jurisdiction only in “extraordinary circumstances” (at para 21). Examples ofsuch circumstances were summarized as follows by the Honourable Stuart J.

Cameron in Civil Appeals in Saskatchewan: The Court ofAppeal Act & Rules Annotated, 1st ed (Regina: Law Society of Saskatchewan Library, 2015) at 69: For special cases or exceptional circumstances in which the court exercised this jurisdiction, see: • Maurice v Priel (1987), (SK CA), 46 DLR (4th) 416, 60 Sask R 241 (CA) (Queen’s Bench judge a party to anapplication for prohibition, thus making this a special case for the Court of Appeal to exercise its original supervisory jurisdiction). • Royal Canadian Mounted Police v Saskatchewan (Commission of Inquiry), (SK CA), [1992] 6 WWR 62, 100 Sask R313 (CA) (Queen’s Bench represented at inquiry, making it unseemly for the application for review of a ruling by the commission to beheard in that court). • Hartwig v Saskatchewan (Minister of Justice), 2007 SKCA 41 (Queen’s Bench judge acting as a commission of inquiry, making this aspecial case for the Court of Appeal to entertain an application by way of certiorari to quash portions of the inquiry report). • Pearlman v University of Saskatchewan, 2006 SKCA 105, 273 DLR (4th) 414 (Queen’s Bench judge deciding a matter qua UniversityVisitor, making this a special case for the Court of Appeal to exercise its original supervisory jurisdiction and entertain an application forjudicial review by way of certiorari). [20] Generally speaking, this is a complete answer to Mr.

Richardson’s attempt to seek an order for prerogative relief from theCourt. The only exception to that bottom line is Mr. Richardson’s request for relief against Zuk J. That is an “extraordinary circumstance”in line with the cases referred to above in that obliging Mr. Richardson to bring an application in the Court of King’s Bench seeking reliefagainst a judge of that Court would be unseemly. However, that ultimately takes Mr. Richardson nowhere because prerogative relief is notavailable against a superior court judge.

See: Richardson SKCA at para 13. [21] Notwithstanding the Court’s established approach to the exercise of its jurisdiction in relation to prerogative relief, I amnonetheless inclined to the view that, in the unique circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction and dealwith the substance of Mr. Richardson’s application. If this Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction, Mr. Richardson will no doubt file hisapplication in the Court of King’s Bench and will thereby impose unavoidable time and cost burdens on the respondents and on that Court.Given that Mr.

Richardson has already had an opportunity to put his case forward in the Court of Appeal, it is in the overall interests ofjustice to address his application on its merits and to thereby resolve it. I do so without in any way resiling from the substantial body ofprecedent that says the Court’s original jurisdiction with respect to prerogative relief should be exercised only very exceptionally. [22] That said, I do not propose to address the merits of Mr. Richardson’s application in any depth.

His materials present a confusingmix of concerns about what he describes as systemic torture, criminally negligent implementation of “engineering controls used for theSARS-Cov-2” pandemic response, RCMP wrongdoings, unlawful arrests, improper actions taken by various members of the Court ofKing’s Bench, this Court and the Federal Court, child trafficking and various crimes including treason, mortgage fraud, crimes againsthumanity and criminal negligence causing death. All things considered, Mr.

Richardson has simply failed to coherently marshal orestablish the facts and the law necessary to make out a case for the relief that he seeks. [23] Mr. Richardson’s application for prerogative relief is dismissed. There will be no order with respect to costs. B. The Second Application [24] Mr. Richardson’s second application for prerogative relief was filed on September 18, 2022 [Second Application]. Therespondents are identified as: (

a) Assistant Commissioner Rhonda Blackmore of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (

b) Jessica Karam;(

c) the Ministry of Health; and (

d) the Saskatchewan Health Authority. The relief sought by Mr. Richardson is set out as follows in hisapplication: 173. This Motion for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition is made for 1. An order to compel the Assistant Commissioner Rhonda Blackmore of the RCMP and/or any of her agents operating in thejurisdiction of Saskatchewan;

to issue arrest warrants for every person involved in the torture, criminal negligence, child trafficking and other related complaints in Canada and the United States; to remove Karis Kenna Nicole Richardson from the care of whomever she is with and deliver Karis to the Applicant or other such person as the Applicant shall decide, at a location to be determined by the Applicant, to comply with the Convention against Torture; to seize the property located at 1292 95th, Street North Battleford, Saskatchewan, S9A 0G2 and arrest all parties involved in the mortgage fraud; 2.

On order for the Saskatchewan Health Authority and the Ministry of Health to; End all covid related mandates in the province of Saskatchewan effective immediately; Remove the unscientific diagnosis associated with the torture of the Applicant; Deliver all documentation relating to the Aerosol Generating Medical Procedures guidance at no cost to the Applicant 3. An order to compel the Executive Council of Saskatchewan to; File and process the Application for Access for the Return of the Child Dated April 8, 2022; 4. An order to compel Amy Groothius to; Place all communications between Dale J.

Richardson on the court record; Place all evidence and documents previously filed or attempted to be filed by Dale J. Richardson or any of his affiliates on the court record; Recuse herself from any matter relating to Dale J. Richardson or any of his family members or affiliates; 5.

An order to compel the Attorney General of Saskatchewan to provide the Applicant with all the information requested in all of his access to information requests at no cost to the Applicant without any redaction; to pay any and all costs associated with this motion, or any of the orders associated with it, and for the maintenance, insurance and any other cost of the property at 1292 95th, Street North Battleford until the resolution of the Appeal and any incidental matters associated with the matters subject to the mandamus and/or the appeal; To pay the legal costs of Applicant incurred from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan failure to do the public duty required by the office of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan; To pay the legal costs of the Applicant for any actions relating to this mandamus To pay the costs of a full report regarding the criminally negligent guidelines to the Applicant or other person that the Applicant shall decide . 2.

An Order prohibiting Assistant Commissioner Rhonda Blackmore or any agent of the F-Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from interfering with, harassing or torturing the Applicant; or attending any residence owned, occupied or regularly attended by the Applicant for any unlawful purposes and 3. An order prohibiting Jessica Karam from harassing, molesting, annoying , persecuting, torturing, interfering with the Applicant or trafficking his children; 4.

An order prohibiting Jessica Karam from representing the public interests in this matter or any matter relating to the Applicant or his affiliates in the province of Saskatchewan; 5. An Order with dispensing with service and ordering electronic service for the Mandamus and CACV4048. [ 25 ] This application suffers from the same central flaw as does the First Application, i.e., it fails to respect the Court’s decisions concerning the exercise of its jurisdiction in relation to prerogative relief. Those decisions include, as noted above, a 2021 decision with respect to an earlier failed attempt by Mr.

Richardson to obtain prerogative relief. However, as with the First Application, it is in the interests of justice to deal with the substance of this application and to decide it on its merits. [ 26 ] I do not intend to analyze the Second Application in any depth. Suffice it to say that Mr.

Richardson’s submissions, both written and oral, cover a broad and confusing range of matters from allegedly criminally negligent “Aerosol Generating Medical Procedures guidance”, to what is said to be a “correlation between judicial actions, child trafficking for the purpose of exploitation and bio-terrorism”, to the alleged “torturing and trafficking a child to conceal the distribution of a biological weapon”, to an allegation that “registrars in multiple courts were used to permit crimes to occur in the courts”, to a contention that “concealing the overthrow of the United States using court rules as

an act of war and not in any way permissible”. [ 27 ] In short, Mr. Richardson has failed to advance a coherent evidentiary basis or legal rationale for the relief he seeks. His application must be dismissed. I would make no order as to costs. IV. CONCLUSION

[ 28 ] As discussed above, the appeals in CACV3745 and CACV3798 are both dismissed with costs of $500 in each payable forthwith to Ms. Richardson. As well, the two applications for prerogative relief filed by Mr. Richardson in CACV4048 are dismissed. There is no order as to costs in relation to those matters. “Richards C.J.S.” Richards C.J.S. I concur. “Schwann J.A.” Schwann J.A. I concur. “McCreary J.A.” McCreary J.A.