Caryk v Alberta (Alberta Works), 2017 ABQB 737

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Caryk v Alberta (Alberta Works), 2017 ABQB 737 Date: 20171206 Docket: 1603 04416 Registry: Edmonton Between: Wendell Caryk Plaintiff - and - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Alberta Works), its Members, its Chief Executive Officer (if any) the Responsible Minister of Alberta Works, and any Departments or Employees of the Government of Alberta, Subsidiaries, Agencies or Other Defendants _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of S.L.

Schulz , Master, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Caryk spoke eloquently and at great length about his pride in being Canadian and the many benefits and programs forming part of the social safety net for Canadians who find themselves in need. He spoke with great regret and disappointment about how he felt the “system” had failed him in his time of need over the years since he first needed assistance. [ 2 ] In his Amended Amended Amended Amended Amended Amended Statement of Claim (“6x Amended Statement of Claim”), Mr.

Caryk brings an action against the Government of Alberta, most notably Alberta Works and its employees. The claims relate to the denial of benefits from various programs such as the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH), the dismissal of several human rights complaints, and the denial of benefits under certain specified programs. His allegations include conspiracy, gross negligence, breach of trust, and breach of his Charter rights. Mr.

Caryk also advances a claim for the damages suffered from similar denials experienced while he was in Manitoba. [ 3 ] The Defendants in this action bring an application under Rule 3.68 to strike the Statement of Claim, specifically on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action (R 3.68(2)(b); are frivolous or improper (R 3.68(2)(c); and are an abuse of process (R 3.68(2)(d)). Alternatively, the Defendants apply for

summary dismissal of the pre-March 10, 2014 claims under Rule 7.3. The

summary dismissal claim was restricted by Counsel for the Defendants to the 2014 claims because those were the only claims contained in the version of the Statement of Claim as it existed when the documents in support of the application were filed. [ 4 ] Unfortunately for Mr. Caryk, there are several problems with his 6x Amended Statement of Claim.

No Reasonable Cause of Action--R. 3.68(2)(b) [ 5 ] No evidence is admissible under this subsection of the rule. The pleadings must stand on their own and establish a cause of action recognized by law. The Court must determine whether, “assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed” ( R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd , 2011 SCC 42 at para 21 ). [ 6 ] Unfortunately, as is often the case when a person is self-represented, the various versions of the Statement of Claim filed by Mr. Caryk are difficult to understand and are deficient. Mr.

Caryk uses words such as “conspiracy” and “breach of trust” from which the Court can attempt to determine a cause of action, however, there are no particulars that give rise to these causes of action, just bold assertions. The 6x Amended Statement of Claim must fail on this ground. Frivolous or Improper--R 3.68(2)(c) [ 7 ] Mr. Caryk takes the phrase frivolous or improper as a personal insult. He stated, “My life is not frivolous.” He accused the Defendants of taking the position that “My life was not worth the cost of a hotel room.” [ 8 ] The words “frivolous” and “improper” do not apply to Mr. Caryk personally.

They are legal terms used to communicate pleadings that do not comply with legal conventions. [ 9 ] The damages claimed here are manifestly overstated and have risen and fallen over time with the various amendments to $10,000,000, a sum which is inconsistent with the highest amounts allowed by the Supreme Court for claims of this nature. This makes the pleading frivolous and improper.

Justice Michalyshyn discusses striking pleadings under this part of Rule 3.68 in Chutskoff Estate v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 , leave to appeal denied at 2014 ABCA 444 , and many of the comments advanced in that decision apply here. [ 10 ] The claims brought by Mr. Caryk with respect to the actions or inactions of the Manitoba government or agencies are improperly brought against the Government of Alberta and its agencies. The Government of Alberta is not responsible for the actions or inaction of another provincial government. [ 11 ] The 6x Amended Statement of Claim must fail on this ground as well.

Abuse of Process--R 3.68(2)(d) [ 12 ] Abuse of process can consist of a collateral attack on the administrative decisions made by the decision makers in the various agencies involved. The rule against collateral attack “prevents a party from using an institutional detour to attack the validity of an order by seeking a different result from a different forum, rather than through the designated appellate or judicial review route” British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v Figliola , 2011 SCC 52 at para 28 ). [ 13 ] Much of the latest version of the Statement of Claim falls into this category. Mr.

Caryk must exhaust the appeal processes provided in the legislation and accept the decisions as final when the appeal or review process is exhausted. Counsel for the Defendants advises that Mr. Caryk has not followed through with the appeal process in several instances. [ 14 ] The claim must also fail for this reason.

Summary Dismissal Application [ 15 ] In light of the conclusion that the 6x Amended Statement of Claim should be struck, I need not address the

Summary Judgment Application. However, if I am wrong in that regard, the Defendants succeed on their application for partial

Summary Dismissal. The original Statement of Claim was filed on March 10, 2016. All allegations relating to events prior to March 10, 2014, particularly those set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 inclusive and any “interference” alleged in paragraph 6 that pre-dates March 10, 2014 are barred by the Limitations Act . The allegations relating to claims arising from the actions of the Manitoba government or Manitoba agencies are also dismissed as not being causes of action for which the Alberta Government can be responsible. [ 16 ] This is a situation where it is fair and just on the evidence before the Court to grant

summary dismissal of the identified claims and I grant that application. Overall Conclusion [ 17 ] For these reasons, I grant the order sought by the Defendants, striking the 6x Amended Statement of Claim. [ 18 ] Normally the successful party is granted costs. Having heard of the difficulties that Mr. Caryk has endured, and having heard the submissions made by Mr. Caryk, I am satisfied that it would be a hardship on Mr. Caryk to face costs which would be in the range of thousands of dollars. I exercise my discretion to direct that each party bear its own costs of this action. [ 19 ] Counsel may draft the judgment roll in this matter. Rule 9.4(2)(

c) is invoked.

Heard on the 28 th day of November, 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 6 th day of December, 2017. S.L. Schulz M.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Wendell Caryk Self-Represented Litigant Josh de Groot Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Defendants