This Action centered around Glen Carter's (“Mr. Carter”) request for leave to Appeal a Decision by the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (the “RTDRS”), following his previous imposition of Court access restrictions due to unrelated litigation. The RTDRS had upheld a notice to vacate served to Mr. Carter by his landlord, Horizon Housing Society (“Horizon”), which Mr. Carter sought to challenge, alleging discriminatory motives and improper procedure.

Nielsen A.C.J. considered Mr. Carter's leave request under Rule 14.5(4), particularly focusing on the required standards for initiating or continuing litigation under Court access restrictions as laid out in the case Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 87 and other cited precedents. The standards necessitated that a claimant must establish reasonable grounds for the litigation and provide a full and complete deposition regarding the facts and circumstances of the proposed claim or proceeding.

Mr. Carter's allegations largely revolved around his claims of covert surveillance and larger conspiracy involving various entities, which he contended led to biased treatment and ultimately to the termination of his tenancy on discriminatory grounds. He also raised procedural issues with the RTDRS hearing, such as alleged bias by the Tenancy Dispute Officer, inadequate service, and being denied a full opportunity to express himself.

Nielsen A.C.J. found multiple independent bases to deny Mr. Carter's leave request. Primarily, the lack of substantiation for Mr. Carter's extraordinary claims of surveillance and conspiracy, which were seen as the core basis for his proposed litigation. Secondly, the absence of a transcript from the RTDRS hearing on August 3, 2023, which was deemed necessary to evaluate Mr. Carter's claims of procedural unfairness during the hearing, as necessitated by the RTDRS Regulation, section 23(2). Finally, the improper inclusion of the Calgary Housing Company (“CHC”) as a party in the proposed Appeal, despite CHC not being a party to the RTDRS Hearing.

Furthermore, Nielsen A.C.J. warned Mr. Carter about potential penalties under Rule 10.49(1), should he continue to abuse the Court's leave processes. This denial of leave to Appeal signified the third time Mr. Carter had been denied leave by the Court, with Nielsen A.C.J. emphasizing that any disagreement with the Memorandum of Decision should be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.