Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicants delayed seeking appeals of the Restricted Access and Receivership Orders by several months, without demonstrating special circumstances to excuse or justify the delay.

• Attempts to repay the debt using Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) strategies were rejected by ATB Financial and the courts as invalid and frivolous.

• The court imposed a Restricted Access Order, requiring applicants to obtain leave and post $10,000 security before commencing further proceedings in the Court of King’s Bench.

• A receivership was granted over 1719091 Alberta Ltd due to non-payment and non-cooperation, with BDO Canada Limited appointed as receiver/manager.

• The applicants’ proposed grounds for appeal, including alleged procedural unfairness, Charter and Bill of Rights violations, and challenges to court process, were found to have no arguable merit.

• ATB Financial was awarded full indemnity costs as specified in the security instrument and guarantees, with the applicants ordered to pay these costs, subject to assessment.

Facts of the case

Michael David Coe owns 1719091 Alberta Ltd, Clearwater Radiator Inc, and Edgewood Products Inc. 1719091 Alberta Ltd borrowed money from ATB Financial, with the debt secured against industrial real property and guaranteed by Clearwater Radiator Inc, Edgewood Products Inc, and Mr. Coe personally. 1719091 Alberta Ltd fell into arrears on its debt repayment. On August 9, 2022, ATB Financial commenced an action against the applicants. The applicants were noted in default on November 8, 2022. On December 16, 2022, the court granted ATB Financial a consent judgment against the applicants in the amount of $1,464,241.94 plus interest. The consent judgment was not appealed.

ATB Financial then sought to foreclose on and sell the industrial property. On January 9, 2023, ATB Financial filed an application for a redemption order, affidavit of value, affidavit of default, and certificate of title. The applicants were served by email, and the court granted a substitutional service order on January 18, 2023. On January 23, 2023, a redemption order was granted, setting a deadline for repayment, after which the property would be sold.

The applicants attempted to pay the debt using documents styled as “money orders” and a promissory note, which ATB Financial rejected as OPCA strategies. These included a purported “money order” listing the Canada Revenue Agency as the source of funds and a promissory note from Vanessa Amy Landry. The court noted these were not legitimate methods of payment.

Court orders and procedural developments

On June 13, 2023, the court ordered the industrial property to be listed for sale. The applicants were uncooperative in the sale process. ATB Financial applied to have the applicants declared vexatious litigants and to impose court access restrictions. On July 30, 2024, Associate Chief Justice K. Nielsen found that while the applicants were not “vexatious litigants” under the Judicature Act, their conduct constituted litigation misconduct. The court, using its inherent jurisdiction, granted an order prohibiting the applicants from commencing any applications, appeals, or other processes in the action unless leave was given, and required a $10,000 cash security for such leave (“Restricted Access Order”).

ATB Financial also applied to appoint a receiver/manager over all current and future assets of 1719091 Alberta Ltd under s 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. On October 17, 2024, Justice R. Armstrong granted the order appointing BDO Canada Limited as receiver and manager (“Receivership Order”).

Mr. Coe applied for an emergency injunction to stay the Receivership Order, but the application was declared a nullity for failing to comply with the Restricted Access Order. A further application for leave to “appeal” the Receivership Order was also struck for non-compliance with the prerequisites in the Restricted Access Order.

Applications to extend time to appeal and for permission to appeal

On July 14, 2025, the applicants filed applications in the Court of Appeal for extensions of time to appeal the Restricted Access and Receivership Orders, permission to appeal, and stays of the orders pending appeal. The Restricted Access Order was granted on July 30, 2024, and the Receivership Order on October 17, 2024. The applications to extend time to appeal were filed more than ten months and nearly nine months after the respective deadlines.

The Court of Appeal, applying the Cairns factors, found that the applicants did not show a bona fide intention to appeal within the required periods, nor did they demonstrate special circumstances excusing or justifying the delay. The applicants’ explanations, including confusion about the effect of the Restricted Access Order and their status as self-represented litigants, were found insufficient. The court noted that deadlines apply equally to all litigants.

The applicants’ proposed grounds for appeal were found to have no arguable merit. These included claims that the orders lacked certain “authentication symbols,” were granted without notice or reasons, and violated Charter and Bill of Rights protections. The court found that the Restricted Access Order was properly made under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and that the Charter and Alberta Bill of Rights did not apply to the orders in question. The applicants also raised arguments regarding the $10,000 security requirement and alleged improper venue for the receivership proceedings, which were rejected.

Discussion of policy terms and clauses at issue

The security instrument and guarantees signed by the applicants provided that 1719091 Alberta Ltd and the guarantors would indemnify ATB Financial for legal expenses on a solicitor and own client (full indemnity) basis. The court found no reason to deny ATB Financial the measure of costs specified in the security instrument and guarantees.

Ruling and overall outcome

Both applications to extend time to appeal were dismissed. As an extension of time was not granted, the applications for permission to appeal and for stays of the orders were not considered. The Court of Appeal found no question of general importance, error of law, or unreasonable exercise of discretion warranting further review. ATB Financial was the successful party and was awarded costs on a solicitor and own client (full indemnity) basis, subject to assessment. The court prepared the order for costs, and no further specific monetary amount was determined beyond the existing judgment and costs.