Stanny, Re, (2008) 462 A.R. 347 (PC)

JudgeLefever, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateOctober 28, 2008
Citations(2008), 462 A.R. 347 (PC);2008 ABPC 305

Stanny, Re (2008), 462 A.R. 347 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. DE.121

In The Matter Of an Application by the Court ex Proprio Motu Pursuant to Section 23.1 of the Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2 Regarding Wlodzimierz Stanny and Ursula Stanny as Set Forth in Re Stanny, January 24, 2008 (2008 ABPC 27)

(D764; 2008 ABPC 305)

Indexed As: Stanny, Re

Alberta Provincial Court

Lefever, P.C.J.

October 28, 2008.

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 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.

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 Alberta Provincial Court 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.

Actions - Topic 2607

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

Courts - Topic 2015

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

Practice - Topic 46

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

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stelco Inc. (1996), 16 O.T.C. 250 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Romanowicz (J.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 100; 45 O.R.(3d) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Lindsay (1997), 120 Man.R.(2d) 141 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lang Michener et al. v. Fabian et al. (1987), 59 O.R.(2d) 353 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Jamieson et al. v. Denman et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Del Bianco et al. v. 935074 Alberta Ltd. et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 556; 2007 ABQB 150, refd to. [para. 23].

O'Neill et al. v. Deacons et al. (2007), 441 A.R. 60; 2007 ABQB 754, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. MacDonald, [1988] O.J. No. 188 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Crneck, Bradley and Shelley (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. J.C.P., [1985] O.J. No. 1353 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1994] O.J. No. 1309 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

Toronto Refiners & Smelters Ltd. v. Jefferies, [1986] O.J. No. 1124 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Mountain Folk Ltd., [1990] O.J. No. 725 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) et al. (1996), 5 O.T.C. 185 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Ittoshat, [1970] 5 C.C.C. 159 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Miles of Music Ltd. and Roch (1989), 31 O.A.C. 380; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 46 O.R.(2d) 520 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Abitibi Paper Co. (1979), 24 O.R.(2d) 742 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Inuvik Coastal Airways Ltd. and McKerral (1983), 51 A.R. 169 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. L.J.G., [1995] O.J. No. 1242 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

Kallaba v. Bylykbashi (2006), 207 O.A.C. 60 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 358 N.R. 394; 227 O.A.C. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

United States of America v. Cobb et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587; 267 N.R. 203; 145 O.A.C. 3, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, sect. 23, sect. 23.1 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mewett, Alan W., and Manning, Morris, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 422, 423 [para. 28].

Nova Scotia, Law Reform Commission, Report on Vexatious Litigants (2006), p. 7 [para. 24].

Paciocco, David M., The Stay of Proceedings as a Remedy in Criminal Cases: Abusing the Abuse of Process Concept (1991), 15 Crim. L.J. 315, p. 331 [para. 28].

Stuesser, Lee, Abuse of Process: The Need to Reconsider (1994), 29 C.R.(4th) 92, p. 104 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Timothy Hurlburt, Q.C., for the Crown;

Wlodzimierz and Ursula Stanny were self represented.

This application was heard by Lefever, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on October 28, 2008.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Thorburn v. R., (2010) 500 A.R. 1 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 Enero 2010
    ...215; 2003 ABCA 1, leave to appeal denied (2004), 330 N.R. 396; 363 A.R. 399; 343 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39]. Stanny, Re (2008), 462 A.R. 347; 2008 ABPC 305, affd. (2009), 484 A.R. 163; 10 Alta. L.R.(5th) 114; 2009 ABQB 161, consd. [para. 46]. Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Lin......
  • Stanny, Re, [2012] A.R. Uned. 562 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 21 Noviembre 2012
    ...dispute resolution. [2] The Provincial Court granted an order finding the two appellants to be vexatious litigants: Stanny (Re) , 2008 ABPC 305, 1 Alta LR (5th) 160, 462 AR 347. They applied for judicial review of that order, but their application was dismissed by Thomas J.: Stanny v Albert......
  • Armstrong v United Alarm Systems Inc., 2017 ABPC 242
    • Canada
    • Alberta Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 22 Septiembre 2017
    ...control its own process to protect the integrity of the judicial system and prevent litigants from abusing the process: see Stanny (Re), 2008 ABPC 305.[24] The record shows that the Plaintiff has made groundless and inflammatory allegations against the Defendant and persons related to it, i......
  • Stanny, Re, 2009 ABQB 161
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 26 Febrero 2009
    ...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 l......
4 cases
  • Thorburn v. R., (2010) 500 A.R. 1 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 Enero 2010
    ...215; 2003 ABCA 1, leave to appeal denied (2004), 330 N.R. 396; 363 A.R. 399; 343 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39]. Stanny, Re (2008), 462 A.R. 347; 2008 ABPC 305, affd. (2009), 484 A.R. 163; 10 Alta. L.R.(5th) 114; 2009 ABQB 161, consd. [para. 46]. Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Lin......
  • Stanny, Re, [2012] A.R. Uned. 562 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 21 Noviembre 2012
    ...dispute resolution. [2] The Provincial Court granted an order finding the two appellants to be vexatious litigants: Stanny (Re) , 2008 ABPC 305, 1 Alta LR (5th) 160, 462 AR 347. They applied for judicial review of that order, but their application was dismissed by Thomas J.: Stanny v Albert......
  • Armstrong v United Alarm Systems Inc., 2017 ABPC 242
    • Canada
    • Alberta Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 22 Septiembre 2017
    ...control its own process to protect the integrity of the judicial system and prevent litigants from abusing the process: see Stanny (Re), 2008 ABPC 305.[24] The record shows that the Plaintiff has made groundless and inflammatory allegations against the Defendant and persons related to it, i......
  • Stanny, Re, 2009 ABQB 161
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 26 Febrero 2009
    ...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 l......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT