Re Gauthier
2018 ABCA 14
http://canlii.ca/t/hppxc
This is the vexatious litigant order that Gauthier was appealing. As comprehensive as I've seen;
But Gauthier had one last crack at it. He could appeal Rooke's vexatious litigant order to the Alberta Court of Appeal but there was no automatic right to appeal. He had to convince a judge in the court to allow him a full appeal.[84] I therefore order:
1. Adam Christian Gauthier is prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.
2. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.
3. Adam Christian Gauthier must describe himself, in the application or document to which this Order applies as “Adam Christian Gauthier”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.
4. Any application for leave will only be accepted if Adam Christian Gauthier is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.
5. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:
(i) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, 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.
6. Any application referenced herein shall be made in writing.
7. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:
(i) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to:
a) the involved potential parties;
b) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and
c) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada.
(ii) respond to the leave application in writing; and
(iii) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.
8. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs.
9. An application that is dismissed may not be made again.
10. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.
[85] This order takes effect immediately.
The issue about his right to drive and immunity from police action was included in a prior posting;[1] Adam Christian Gauthier seeks permission to appeal a September 13, 2017 Queen’s Bench order and the “Gauthier vs. Starr vexatious litigant decision”.
[2] One aspect of the September 13, 2017 order dismissed Mr. Gauthier’s application for permission to file documents in the Court of Queen’s Bench. He wished to commence an action alleging that the police had no right to stop him from driving without insurance and while unauthorized. Mr. Gauthier claims that he is “immune from police action”. The clerks, as directed by a pre-existing order, refused to file his documents.
[3] Another aspect of the September 13, 2017 order declared the applicant a vexatious litigant. This feature restricted his ability to commence or continue any matter at any level of court in Alberta. He could only do this with permission of the court and if represented by a member in good standing of The Law Society of Alberta.
[4] Mr. Gauthier also seeks permission to appeal a 2016 Queen’s Bench order that designated him as a vexatious litigant. That decision required the applicant to identify himself by his legally correct name in any court documents and provided that he could represent only himself, and no other parties, when named as a party in any action. His access to the courts was not otherwise restricted at that time.
Note the requirement that Gauthier correctly identify himself in court documents. While his legal name is Adam Gauthier he was filing under Eiricki Ragnarik, a name he made up.[20] The July 18, 2017 documents also disclose that Gauthier, on July 13, 2017, was driving a black 2001 Ford Focus owned by Justina Beth Smith of Edmonton. The vehicle had a fake licence plate attached which read “private non commercial use only”. This attracted the attention of the Edmonton Police Service. Gauthier was stopped, detained, and arrested after he refused to identify himself. Gauthier received three tickets under Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 for:
• s 54(1)(a) - driving without insurance,
• s 94(2) - driving while unauthorized to do so, and
• a third charge which is not legible from the traffic ticket.
The vehicle was seized per Traffic Safety Act, s 173.
[21] Gauthier claimed his Charter rights have been breached in relation to the July 13, 2017 event. He claimed he is due damages and return of the Ford Focus because he is outside the law. This is, again, false.
Unfortunately the Court of Appeal set up an insurmountable barrier for Adam. He could only get approval to appeal if his proposed appeal made sense, had a basis in actual real law, and had at least a small chance of success. None of Adam's extensive roster of past cases have approached these minimum requirements and nor did his current appeal.
Judge Rooke's order that Gauthier had to be represented in any court proceeding by a real lawyer didn't help either. Adam complained that no lawyer in Alberta would represent him because they were all terrified of antagonizing Judge Rooke. While the thought might please Judge Rooke I doubt that he would agree that he'd cowed all of Alberta's legal practitioners and nor did the appeals judge;[7] There are several reasons why I must refuse Mr. Gauthier permission to appeal.
[8] First, he cannot appeal the portion of the September 13, 2017 order that denied him permission to file his documents in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Rule 14.5(4) forbids any appeal from an order denying a vexatious litigant permission to institute or continue proceedings.
[9] Second, in order to be granted permission to appeal the remainder of the 2017 order, the applicant must satisfy this Court that the proposed appeal incorporates an important question of law and has a reasonable chance of success and that any delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the underlying action or cause undue prejudice.[12]
[10] None of the grounds identified by the applicant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal.
I'm guessing that this is the end of Adam's legal career. If he can't argue alternate laws that he's made up himself he's got nothing. Judge Rooke is being totally unreasonable about refusing to accept, as real law, whatever incoherent gibberish Adam feels like spewing out and incoherent gibberish is the only law that Adam has been able to master.[12] The applicant says he is unable to find a lawyer to represent him. He claims that this is because lawyers are afraid to act for a person who wishes to appeal a decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke. Mr. Gauthier asserts that lawyers believe that their careers will be hurt if they act for him.
[13] I reject this argument.
[14] No judge will hold it against a litigant who appeals a decision of the judge. Judges know that there are appeal courts for a reason.
[15] Nor do judges hold grudges against lawyers who act for such clients. They appreciate that lawyers play an important role in the administration of justice and provide invaluable assistance to both their clients and the courts before which they appear.
[16] The Alberta bar is independent of the courts and the government. Lawyers understand that they play a pivotal role in advancing their clients’ interests and implementing the rule of law. They advance their clients’ interests “resolutely”. They are not cowed by the high office a judge holds. Members of the bar regularly act for clients who wish to appeal decisions of Alberta judges who hold senior administrative positions.
