_______________________________________________________

Endorsement

of the

Honourable Chief Justice

M.T. Moreau

_______________________________________________________

I. Introduction

[1] On February 5, 2018 I received an email from Adam Christian Gauthier [Mr. Gauthier]. Mr. Gauthier is subject to strict court access restrictions as a consequence of an order issued by Rooke ACJ on September 13, 2017 in Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #1703-13118, reported as: Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555, leave denied 2018 ABCA 14. In brief, Mr. Gauthier is prohibited from commencing or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in an Alberta Court, except with leave of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge of the relevant Court.

[2] Mr. Gauthier complains in his email that he should not be subject to court access restrictions and, in particular, that he is currently required to submit any future leave applications to this Court via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta. He says that this Court had no right in law to take that step. He also alleges that:

... I have been the victim of what I would categorize as extreme bias by your associate Chief Justice, John D. Rooke. ...

[3] Mr. Gauthier indicated that his email was intended as an application to vary or set aside the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order:

... The intent of this communication is to have you set aside or vary Johns Rooks order on the basis that he erred in law. Specifically when requiring the use of council. ...

I am sending you this letter requesting that you set aside the order as a whole, or, vary the order and remove the required use of a bar member to file documents. ...

[Sic.]

[4] Mr. Gauthier subsequently on February 9, 2018 emailed to my attention a two-page “Application for Leave to Vary or Set Aside the Filing Restriction Order of September 13, 2017. Mr. Gauthier explained he had inadvertently failed to attach the Application to his February 5, 2018 email. The Application generally parallels the content of Mr. Gauthier’s February 5, 2018 email.

[5] I have interpreted Mr. Gauthier’s correspondence as an application for leave to apply to vary or terminate his court access restrictions.

II. Analysis

[6] I reject Mr. Gauthier’s application on two separate bases.

A. Mr. Gauthier’s Email is Not a Proper Leave Application.

[7] The September 13, 2017 court access restriction order for Mr. Gauthier sets out information and format criteria for a valid leave application. A leave application must be made in writing (para 7) and:

6. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

(i) attaching a copy of this Order, restricting Adam Christian Gauthier's access to the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

(ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Adam Christian Gauthier proposes to issue or file or continue;

(iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

(iv) indicating whether Adam Christian Gauthier has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

(v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

(vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

[8] Mr. Gauthier’s correspondence does not meet these requirements. As Nielsen J recently observed in Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 87, once a person is subject to court access restrictions then that person is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation, unless the court is satisfied otherwise: para 19. An abusive litigant subject to that presumption has the obligation to establish a foundation for their application, and put their “best foot forward” to displace that presumption: para 27.

[9] Second, Mr. Gauthier did not meet the prerequisites of paragraph 5 of the order, which states:

Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding will only be accepted if Adam Christian Gauthier is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.

[10] Mr. Gauthier instead sent the February 5, 2018 email himself.

[11] These are two separate reasons for my rejection of Mr. Gauthier’s application. He has not met the minimum criteria for a valid leave application.

[12] In Mr. Gauthier’s email he appears to indicate that the paragraph 5 requirement applies to all filings. It does not. This order does not, for example, prohibit Mr. Gauthier from filing submissions or affidavit evidence in an existing matter without leave of the Court. The Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order does not prohibit Mr. Gauthier from filing a statement of defence or otherwise responding to an application made by an opposing party. Mr. Gauthier does not need counsel to represent him in court if that is the case. This requirement is an additional screening step which was implemented in response to Mr. Gauthier’s pattern of abusive litigation conducted on his own behalf and as a “busybody” in other persons’ court disputes: Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 at paras 70-83.

B. Stare Decisis

[13] Second, I reject Mr. Gauthier’s leave application because he is seeking to re-open a decision that has already been decided. I will not review Mr. Gauthier’s claim that the requirement that he only submit leave applications via a lawyer is incorrect in law because that issue has already been considered and determined by a higher court: Re Gauthier, 2018 ABCA 14.

[14] Mr. Gauthier’s email correspondence did not accurately set out the circumstances of the Court of Appeal’s prior denial of his leave application. He indicated that he has challenged the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restrictions in the Alberta Court of Appeal and was denied leave. He said:

... I was denied leave on the basis that I filed out of time. It was suggested that I did not act expediently in my effort to appeal. That is simply not true as I had sent a draft of the intended appeal to Justice Rookes office within days of receiving the restriction order. ...

[15] Mr. Gauthier’s challenge to Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 resulted in a reported judgment, Re Gauthier, 2018 ABCA 14, which denied him permission to appeal the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 decision. Mr. Gauthier does not cite Re Gauthier, 2018 ABCA 14 in either his email or Application.

[16] In that decision Justice Wakeling considered Mr. Gauthier’s allegations that his late filing was due to improper steps taken by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, and that Mr. Gauthier was “obstructed” by court staff. This complaint was rejected by Justice Wakeling at paras 20-22. Justice Wakeling concluded there was “no evidence” to support Mr. Gauthier’s complaints. That decision is binding on this Court.

[17] Second, I do not accept Mr. Gauthier’s proposition that sending “a draft of the intended appeal” to Rooke ACJ is relevant. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal are different courts. This Court could not issue a direction to grant leave that would be binding on the Alberta Court of Appeal.

[18] Further, paragraph 2 of the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order explicitly instructed Mr. Gauthier to direct any application for leave to the administrative judge of the corresponding Alberta Court:

... Adam Christian Gauthier is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal ... in the Alberta Court of Appeal ... without an order of the Chief Justice ... of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted ... [Emphasis added.]

[19] Third, Mr. Gauthier’s letter to me omitted to indicate that a package of materials that appeared to have been a leave application challenging the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 decision were first incorrectly directed to Master Schulz of this Court on October 18, 2017. Rooke ACJ, in a decision reported as Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 673, explicitly directed Mr. Gauthier to make any leave application in relation to the Alberta Court of Appeal to that Court: paras 9-10.

[20] However, timing is not the means by which Mr. Gauthier attempted to challenge the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order. Mr. Gauthier has omitted referring in his letter to me that his leave application was denied on other separate bases.

[21] Justice Wakeling in Re Gauthier, 2018 ABCA 14 concluded at paras 9-10 that none of the issues Mr. Gauthier advanced as to why he should not be subject to court access restrictions had a reasonable chance of success on appeal. That result is binding on this Court.

[22] The Re Gauthier, 2018 ABCA 14 decision then considered and rejected Mr. Gauthier’s challenge against the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order requirement that Mr. Gauthier submit leave applications via a lawyer. Mr. Gauthier said that was either unlawful or unfair: paras 11-18. Justice Wakeling confirmed that the requirement that Mr. Gauthier use a lawyer to submit his leave applications was a valid court instruction. That too is a conclusion which is binding on this Court.

[23] That is a general and complete answer to Mr. Gauthier’s complaint and request that his court access restrictions be reconsidered and altered. His allegations that the court access restrictions which now apply to him are unlawful were evaluated and determined as being without merit by the Alberta Court of Appeal in a decision that is binding on this Court. His leave proceeding was not simply denied on the basis of a defect in timing. Its substance was also reviewed and rejected.

III. Conclusion

[24] Mr. Gauthier has now submitted multiple leave applications to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that do not conform to the requirements of the Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order. He is clearly aware of the requirements which are in force, but has elected not to follow the Court’s instructions.

[25] Any further leave applications to this Court which do not conform to the requirements of the September 13, 2017 Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 court access restriction order will be rejected without further comment.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12th day of February 2018.

M.T. Moreau C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

Adam Christian Gauthier

for the Applicant