The Defendant had Court access restrictions imposed on her following an Application pursuant to section 23-23.1 of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 in a distinct Action involving the Attorney General of Canada, and further stringent communications and filing restrictions were subsequently imposed on her in an Action involving the Bank of Canada (the “RBC Action”).

Among other things, the Court noted that: the Defendant had phoned the Calgary Clerk of the Court identifying herself by name and demanded to know the status of certain litigation where she was involved; the Clerk informed the Defendant that she was prohibited from communicating with the Court by telephone as per the RBC Action; the Defendant advised that her lawyer (not named) would contact the Alberta Court of King’s Bench unless her requests were met and the lawyer never materialized; the Clerk hung up when the Defendant repeatedly called; additional telephone calls were received from persons who purported to not be the Defendant but who demanded certain information concerning the Defendant’s litigation, none of these persons were a lawyer and the Clerks did not provide the requested information; and that Alberta Court of Justice staff also received telephone demands from the Defendant (together the “Noted Conduct”).

The Court found that the Noted Conduct warranted a further Rule 10.49(1) penalty following the scheme established in the RBC Action, in which the Court noted that the Defendant “should also anticipate that additional penalties will increase, stepwise” until the Defendant discontinued her misconduct. The Court noted that the most recent baseline penalty imposed for the Defendant’s conduct was $30,000 and that the current baseline penalty was now $35,000. The Court accordingly determined that the Noted Conduct warranted an elevated Rule 10.49(1) penalty of $40,000 and that the penalty would be paid by the Clerk of the Court from the security for misconduct pool established in the current Action and the RBC Action.