Chief Justice reigns in unruly self-rep who tells court staff to “go f*ck yourselves”
Earlier this month, Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen released an interesting decision which put significant restrictions on a self represented litigant.
In McClelland v Harrison, 2023 ABKB 638, the parties had a trial in the fall of 2022. Ms. Harrison didn’t like the results. After the trial judge made the decision, Ms. Harrison set Edmonton court staff at least 17 emails which contained inappropriate communications. Here are some excerpts from her emails:
Im going to kill him.
Thank you forr noteven giving me anything, just I suspected no judge in Alberta will ever care about me or my kids.
I’m going to kill him thank joy for destroying our life
Rot in hell you asshole
Rot in hell you stupid bitch
I will kill him. Thank you for ruining our life.
Three kids are victims. I hope you sleep well at night.
I will kill him. Look how happy youll be then :) go fuck yourselves
The appeal is started.
Go fuck yourselves. He just about killed me. Justice Kraus erred there is no proof before the court Mr.Danyluk ever paid 892.00… how can I be granted sole custody of one child and supervised parenting of my babies in another province. You're going down. Fuck you
I will kill him. Such a good judge
Chief Justice Neilsen and other justices have rendered several decisions on this situation. (See McLellan v. Harrison 2022 ABKB 852, 2022 ABQB 547, 2022 ABQB 589, 2022 ABQB 604, 2023 ABKB 638)
In one memorandum, Chief Justice Nielsen cited the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lochner v Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720:
“... Vexatious litigants are a drain on our system of justice. In addition to being a burden on the opposing parties, they are a burden on the judiciary and court personnel. At least the judiciary has mechanisms to attempt to address the conduct of vexatious litigants, but court personnel are ill-equipped to do anything when faced with a barrage of telephone calls, emails, and other communications frequently characterized by incendiary and rude remarks. The cost and time incurred by opposing parties is significant, and adverse costs awards frequently cannot be relied upon to discourage future comparable behaviour.”
To address the situation moving forward, Chief Justice Nielson restricted Ms. Harrison from further communication to the court unless, her documents were provided via registered mail or courier and addressed to the Manager or, if applicable, the appropriate Judicial Assistant. If the documents were submitted by a lawyer retained to represent Ms. Harrison this requirement could be avoided.
Ms. Harrison was further prohibited from the following:
any communication with any Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Clerks, Judicial Assistants, Court Coordinators, or other Court of King’s Bench of Alberta staff
personally appearing at the Court’s Counters, or reception desks
filing or otherwise submitting documents by entering the courthouse and physically depositing those documents
If any materials were not submitted properly, the Chief Justice ordered that the materials would “be immediately discarded without any response.” Additionally, Ms. Harrison was ordered to pay costs of $1000 to the court.
In making this direction, Chief Justice Nielsen spelled out the authority which permitted him to impose additiona litigation management, citing the UK 1887 decision of Grepe v. Loam (1887) 37 Ch D 168 (UK CA).
In implementing these measures against Ms. Harrison, Chief Justice Nielsen noted.
“Ms. Harrison’s open defiance and rejection of court processes and Orders, her abuse and bullying of court personnel, and her mockery of the operation and decisions of this Court, requires a meaningful response.”
We hope you enjoyed this unusual read.
For questions or concerns please Contact Us.