Stanny, Re, 2009 ABQB 161

• Judge: Thomas, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 26, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: 2009 ABQB 161;(2009), 484 A.R. 163 (QB)

Stanny, Re (2009), 484 A.R. 163 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. AU.055

Wlodzimierz Stanny (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (respondent)

Ursula Stanny (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (respondent)

(0803 17407; 0903 00443; 2009 ABQB 161)

Indexed As: Stanny, Re

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Thomas, J.

March 13, 2009.

Summary:

A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage. The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated. Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001. Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005. The offences were against their banker. In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals. The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 462 A.R. 347, held that it had the jurisdiction to control its process to protect the integrity of the judicial process and in so doing to prevent vexatious litigants from abusing the court's process. Both Stannys had undertaken a systemic and repetitive abuse of the court's process in order to pursue a dispute having its genesis in a civil dispute between the Stannys and the bank. Section 504, rather than being a safety valve for individuals who genuinely perceived that the apparatus of the state had failed to commence criminal proceedings, had become a frequently wielded club of oppression in the hands of the Stannys. Consequently, the court issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue. The Stannys applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications.

Actions - Topic 2602

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Vexatious litigant - What constitutes - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge held that it had the jurisdiction to control its process to protect the integrity of the judicial process and in so doing to prevent vexatious litigants from abusing the court's process - Both Stannys had undertaken a systemic and repetitive abuse of the court's process in order to pursue a dispute having its genesis in a civil dispute between the Stannys and the bank - Section 504, rather than being a safety valve for individuals who genuinely perceived that the apparatus of the state had failed to commence criminal proceedings, had become a frequently wielded club of oppression in the hands of the Stannys - Consequently, the court issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the order as reasonable - See paragraphs 34 and 35.

Actions - Topic 2607

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Prohibition order - [See Actions - Topic 2602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 789

Liberty - Particular rights - Access to courts - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Stannys applied for judicial review, asserting that their rights to "life, liberty and security of the person" under s. 7 of the Charter had been violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications - While the Stannys were now restricted from commencing proceedings in the Provincial Court at will, such choices were not of "fundamental importance" or "inherently personal" - The restrictions placed on the Stannys did not prevent them from choosing to pursue meritorious claims where there were justiciable issues to be decided - Choosing to pursue vexatious claims that were without merit and laying informations as a form of harassment were not choices that engaged the right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraph 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 1206.5

Security of the person - General - Right to psychological integrity (incl. dignity, reputation, etc.) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1208.7 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1208.7

Security of the person - General - Access to courts - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Stannys applied for judicial review, asserting that their rights to "life, liberty and security of the person" under s. 7 of the Charter had been violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications - The third branch of s. 7, "security of the person", protected against, inter alia, state action that seriously interfered with an individual's psychological integrity - The threshold was very high and the state interference had to be extreme - The Stannys had not proven psychological stress, nor would the order reasonably cause stress sufficient to fall within s. 7 - The other protections offered by "security of the person" were not engaged - Further, "security of person" did not include the right to access the civil justice system - See paragraphs 24 and 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 5651.1

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Access to courts (incl. court fees) - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Stannys applied for judicial review, asserting that the order had a discriminating effect against them, violating s. 15 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications - The Stannys had been distinguished from other persons in that they had to now receive leave of one of two Provincial Court judges before they could institute or continue proceedings at that court - Other individuals were not subject to such restrictions - Whether this distinction amounted to a disadvantage within the meaning of s. 15 might be arguable, but in any event, the distinction was not based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability, nor was the distinction made on the basis of the recognized "analogous" grounds of citizenship - Analogous grounds were those personal characteristics that were immutable, or that were not within the control of the individual - The order was based on the conduct the Stannys exhibited while purporting to engage in judicial processes - Canadian law properly regulated, governed or imposed prohibitions based on conduct - It was only when a law or the application of the law made distinctions based on who we were rather than what we did that it became improper and offensive - Section 15 had not been engaged - See paragraphs 29 to 32.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5.3

General - General principles - Unwritten constitutional principles - Constitutionalism and the rule of law (incl. access to justice) - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Stannys applied for judicial review, asserting that their right of access to justice had been violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications - The right of access to justice was protected by the rule of law, an unwritten principle of Canada's constitution - However, the restrictions on accessing the Provincial Court and the laying of informations placed on the Stannys did not violate their right of access to the courts or engage their right of access to justice - The order did not prevent the Stannys from pursuing meritorious claims, defending themselves against prosecution or to have counsel take steps on their behalf - Should they need to lay a private information they could seek leave to do so - The objective and effect of the order was to protect third parties and judicial resources from the efforts of the Stannys in pursuing vexatious and unmeritorious proceedings - No individual had the right to access any court in Canada to pursue vexatious and unmeritorious proceedings nor were the rights of justice engaged by such proceedings - See paragraph 27.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - [See third Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7405

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Administration of justice (s. 92(14)) - General principles - Jurisdiction of provincial courts - [See second Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - [See Actions - Topic 2602 ].

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Stannys applied for judicial review, bringing a constitutional challenge asserting that the powers of the Provincial Court were limited to dealing with criminal matters only and that there was no constitutional basis for the vexatious litigants procedure set out in s. 23.1 of the Judicature Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications - The Stannys had engaged various judges and officers of the Provincial Court in their attempts to launch legal proceedings - The provisions of the Judicature Act provided a procedure for a finding by a Provincial Court judge that a person was a vexatious litigant - The enactment of the Judicature Act was within the jurisdiction of the Alberta Legislature pursuant to the division of powers set out in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act - In particular, ss. 92(13) to 92(16) inclusive allowed the provinces to make laws regarding local matters, property and civil rights within a province and the administration of justice within a province, and to attach penalties to those laws - Section 23.1 of the Judicature Act and the decision were constitutionally valid in that respect - See paragraph 18.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - A bank foreclosed on the Stannys' mortgage - The relationship between the Stannys and their banker deteriorated - Criminal charges were brought against Wlodzimierz Stanny in March 2001 - Charges were brought against Ursula Stanny in February 2005 - The offences were against their banker - In both cases, the disputes led to years of litigation, with the Stannys attempting to seek recourse via s. 504 of the Criminal Code to have criminal process issue against various individuals - The court, on its own motion, brought an application under s. 23 of the Judicature Act - The Provincial Court judge issued a vexatious litigant order against the Stannys which restricted their access to criminal process, but which preserved their right to have legitimate disputes investigated by the proper authorities and, if appropriate, for criminal process to issue - The Stannys applied for judicial review, arguing that making false statements accusing another person of having committed an offence constituted mischief and was a criminal offence contrary to s. 140(1) of the Criminal Code and that, as a result, allegations of laying false or vexatious informations could only be addressed in this manner - In essence, the Stannys were arguing that the field was occupied from a constitutional perspective and that the provisions of the Judicature Act were rendered inoperative pursuant to the doctrine of paramountcy - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications - The provisions of the Judicature Act which granted jurisdiction to the Provincial Court judge were not rendered inoperative by the doctrine of paramountcy or by the field being occupied by federal legislation - The paramountcy doctrine held that where a provincial law and federal law conflicted such that obedience with one necessitated non-compliance with the other, or where the provincial law frustrated the purpose of the federal law, then the provincial law was inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency - The vexatious litigant provisions reflected in s. 23.1 of the Judicature Act were supplementary to the Criminal Code prohibition on making false accusations that some other person committed an offence - The two statutes were in no way contradictory, either one or both could be relied upon - The Provincial Court could exercise both a criminal jurisdiction and to the extent s. 23.1 of the Judicature Act reflected a civil power, could exercise that civil jurisdiction as well - See paragraphs 19 and 20.

Courts - Topic 8405

Provincial Courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - [See second and third Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 46

Actions - Commencement of - Bars - Vexatious litigant - [See Actions - Topic 2602 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 15].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 19].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 19].

Mann v. R., [1966] S.C.R. 238, refd to. [para. 19].

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) and Ontario (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 5; 1 N.R. 9, refd to. [para. 19].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 19].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 207; 194 W.A.C. 207; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 23].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 24].

Polewsky v. Home Hardware Stores Ltd. et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 358; 66 O.R.(3d) 600 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

Vandenelsen v. Merkley, [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 343; 125 A.C.W.S.(3d) 574 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93, refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 30].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 30].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 31].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, sect. 23.1 [para. 7 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, pp. 16-9 [para. 19]; 55-22 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Wlodzimierz Stanny, appeared on his own behalf;

Ursula Stanny, appeared on her own behalf;

Timothy Hurlburt, Q.C. (Alberta Justice), for the respondent.

These applications were heard on February 26, 2009, by Thomas, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on March 13, 2009.