Kindylides v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABQB 756

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Kindylides v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABQB 756 Date: 20111130 Docket: 1103 03402 Registry: Edmonton Between: Gabriella Kindylides Plaintiff - and - City of Edmonton, Edmonton Police Service, David Korol, Acting Chief of Edmonton Police Service, John Doe No. 1, Police Officer At Edmonton Police Professional Standard Branch, John Does, Members of Edmonton Police Service, Chrysalis, Edmonton People In Need Shelter Society Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of L. A.

Smart, Master in Chambers _______________________________________________________ Background [ 1 ] The Defendant David Korol applies to have this action struck pursuant to Rule 3.68(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court as against all defendants in this action. In the alternative, he seeks security for costs pursuant to Rules 4.22 and 4.23. The Defendants Chrysalis and Edmonton People In Need Shelter Society (EPIN) appeared in support of the application.

[ 2 ] The Statement of Claim contains 64 paragraphs on 16 pages. It alleges that the claim by the Plaintiff Gabriela Kindylides is for pain and suffering caused by physical and mental torture. It identifies the John Does as a police officer who refused to accept the Plaintiff ’ s complaint at the Edmonton Police Professional Standard Branch and others of unknown number of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) who have organized the Plaintiff ’ s victimization.

Chrysalis is alleged to be the Plaintiff ’ s former full-time employer and EPIN as a former part-time employer. [ 3 ] More particularly the claim sets out allegations that EPS members alone or with the co-Defendants and others conspired to commit such wrongful and tortious acts as: (

a) Engaging in physical, emotional, verbal, or mental torture of the Plaintiff; (

b) Engaging in the administration of pharmaceutical or other drugs on the Plaintiff; (

c) Engaging in conduct designed to ruin or damage her reputation and encourage members of the public to punish her; and (

d) Encouraging members of the public to subject her to sexual humiliation, treating her as insane, mocking her, subjecting her to excessive noise, illegal surveillance, increased police presence, isolation techniques, interferences with her attempts to make a reasonably good living, and “ crazy making ” or other activities. [ 4 ] In addition the Statement of Claim sets out many specifics pertaining to the above types of alleged misconduct. Discussion [ 5 ] Under Rule 3.68

(1) I am to assume that the facts pled in the Statement of Claim are true. The Statement of Claim is to be read generously and, if necessary, amendment directed to more clearly disclose the cause of action. It should not be struck simply because the claim sets up a fact situation or legal proposition which would mean the defendants ’ liability to the plaintiff would be novel or dubious. The pleading will not be struck out unless it is plain and obvious it discloses no cause of action.

Despite the principles set out above that material facts must be taken as true, the court is not obliged to assume the correctness of patently ridiculous allegations, those based on wild speculation and assumptions or are “ only language, not reality ” . [ 6 ] As this application was made in the forenoon chambers it was necessary to reserve and read the entire Statement of Claim, which I have done. I am satisfied after hearing the arguments of the Plaintiff and my review that the claims can at best be described as speculative.

There appears to be no aspect of it that is capable of salvage by amendment or otherwise. Conclusion [ 7 ] It is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action. Accordingly, the action is dismissed as against all Defendants. Despite the Applicant being entirely successful, I am disinclined to grant costs against the Plaintiff in this circumstance. Heard on the 05 th day of May, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 30 th day of November, 2011.

L. A. Smart M.C.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Gabriella Kindylides self represented B. Epp Aviva Canada Inc. Legal Services for EPIN Jeremy Taylor Field LLP for the Defendants/Applicants