Stratkotter v Canada, 2020 ABQB 768

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Stratkotter v Canada, 2020 ABQB 768 Date: 20201210 Docket: 2001 14028 Registry: Calgary Between: Lorraine Annette Stratkotter Plaintiff - and - Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta, Office of the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Justine Trudeau, Mr. Andrew Scheer, Mr. Erin O’Toole, Office of the Federal Minister of Health of Canada, Ms. Petitpas Taylor, Office of the Federal Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, Mr. David Lametti, Ms.

Jody Wilson- Raybould, Office of the Federal Finance Minister of Canada, Ms. Chrystia Freeland, Mr. Bill Morneau, Health Canada, Office of the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Jason Kenney, Ms. Rachel Notley, Office of the Minister of Health of Alberta, Mr. Tyler Shandro, Ms. Sarah Hoffman, Office of the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta, Ms. Kathleen Ganley, Mr. Doug Schweitzer, Mr. Kaycee Madu, Office of the Minister of Treasury Board and Finance of Alberta, Mr. Travis Toews, Mr.

Joe Ceci, Alberta Health Care, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, Law Society of Alberta, Office of the Alberta Out-Of Country Health Services, Ms. Marjorie Hibbert, Dr. N. Hagen, Doctor P. Jamieson, Doctor N. Kassen, Doctor S. Patel, Ms. Janelle Gehring, Alberta Out-of Country Health Services Appeal Panel, Ms. Cheryl Middleton, Ms. Jamie Pytel, Doctor Pavanjit Ahluwalia, Doctor Danielle Michaels, Ms. Evangeline Caoile, Mr.

Blair Maxton, Doctor David Hanley, Doctor Caitlin Sinclair, Doctor Adrian Harvey, Doctor Lois Donovan, Doctor Ralf Paschke, Alberta Office of the Advocate for Persons with Disabilities, Mr. Tony Flores, John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s). Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________

[ 1 ] On November 17, 2020, Lorraine Annette Stratkotter [Ms. Stratkotter] filed a Statement of Claim that named 54 Defendants as well as “John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s)”. The names of those Defendants in the style of cause above are reproduced exactly as listed on Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim. On December 7, 2020, Counsel for the Law Society of Alberta [LSA], by letter, referred Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim to the Court as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7].

I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in southern Alberta. [ 2 ] Counsel for the LSA indicated that Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim exhibited a number of apparent defects: that the Statement of Claim made no allegations at all against the LSA; and, on its face, the Statement of Claim appears to be frivolous, irrelevant and improper, and an abuse of process. [ 3 ] In brief, Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim states that Ms. Stratkotter sought to have a variety of treatments relating to her thyroid gland conducted outside of Canada. Ms.

Stratkotter indicates that she requested financial support so that the expense of those treatments was paid, but that funding was denied by the Out-of-Country Health Services Committee. Denial of funding was subsequently upheld by the Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel. [ 4 ] Ms. Stratkotter reports that in 2019 she had open heart surgery and “[u]nder duress”, she also had her thyroid gland removed, a step to which she says she was opposed. Ms.

Stratkotter says that removal of that organ creates a “high risk for complications”, and that she: ... has unwillingly experienced irrevocable damage in every aspect of her quality of life as related to the thyroid surgery, including but not limited to that it was not successful. ... A thyroid gland with all its natural bodily functions that the Plaintiff cannot get back. [ 5 ] The Statement of Claim concludes at paras 34-38: ...

The “discretionary power” actions of the Defendants, is in fact a direct violation of the Plaintiff’s guaranteed Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution, Health Acts, Criminal Code and all other related legislation, including, but not limited to, right to the best individual medical care, right to quality of life, and right to judicial fairness. ... The Defendants’ abuse of power and negligence is clearly pre-meditated cruel and unusual physical and mental abusive punishment resulting in devaluation and safety of life. ...

No one deserves to be treated like this, especially to be intentionally marginalized in a society that purports the equal safety and support of all its citizens in a free and democratic society where the government is responsible to and representative of all its individual people. ... My life has value. ... This was inhuman. [ 6 ] Ms. Stratkotter seeks as remedies a “written apology from all parties involved” and: Lump sum payment in the amount of a minimum of $10,500,00 Canadian (10.5 million dollars Canadian), that being at least equivalent to the amount that Mr.

Omar Kandar received. [Sic.] [ 7 ] I have reviewed Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim and conclude on multiple bases that this filing is an AVAP that should be reviewed under the CPN7 document-based “show cause” procedure. II. CPN7 [ 8 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 9 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strikes out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 10 ] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 , at paras 22, 24 . Only restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah #2 at paras 24-48. There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45). III. CPN7 Analysis [ 11 ] Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim exhibits a number of potential issues. A. No Allegations Against Parties

[12] I have carefully reviewed Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim. Its text makes no mention of all but three of the namedDefendants. For example, the LSA is identified in the style of cause as a Defendant, but Ms. Stratkotter provides no allegations at all ofwrongdoing by the LSA. There is no apparent basis why the LSA should be involved in Ms. Stratkotter’s lawsuit. The same is true for 50other named Defendants. [13] Three Defendants are mentioned in the body of Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim.

At para 25, Defendant Adrian Harvey ismentioned in this context: The Thyroid Surgeon, Doctor Adrian Harvey in Calgary, Alberta, that could drain the thyroid and perform Thyroid RadiofrequencyAblation. He began subsequently on May 17th, 2019. [Sic.] [14] Ms. Stratkotter makes no allegations that Dr. Harvey was negligent in his conducting this treatment, or otherwise did anythingwrong. She does not allege she was harmed by Dr. Harvey. [15] Ms.

Stratkotter does make specific allegations in relation to the Out-of-Country Health Service Committee, and Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel, specifically that they acted incorrectly and improperly when these bodies did not fund treatmentof Ms. Stratkotter conducted outside of Canada. [16] I therefore ask Ms. Stratkotter to provide an explanation of why the named Defendants, other than the Out-of-Country HealthService Committee, and Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel, should be parties to this action. B. Failure to Exhaust Alternative Remedies [17] Ms.

Stratkotter reports that she was refused funding for medical treatment. She then appealed that decision. The Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel denied Ms. Stratkotter’s appeal on February 13, 2019. Ms. Stratkotter states she disagreed withthat outcome, but then did nothing until Ms. Stratkotter filed her Statement of Claim 21 months later. [18] Given the facts alleged in her Statement of Claim, Ms. Stratkotter did not exhaust her alternative remedies available to obtainstate funded out-of-country medical care. She could have filed a judicial review of the Appeal Panel decision with this Court, e.g.

Blackv Alberta (Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel), 2017 ABQB 80. That judicial review would have had to have been filedwithin six months of the Appeal Panel decision: Rule 3.15(2). Ms. Stratkotter did not pursue this remedy available to her in a timelymanner. [19] On this basis I request Ms. Stratkotter explain why the Out-of-Country Health Service Committee, and Out-of-Country HealthServices Appeal Panel, ought to be potentially liable, given Ms. Stratkotter had a judicial mechanism to obtained the care she claims tohave required, but Ms. Stratkotter did not take advantage of that procedure. C.

Bald and Unparticularized Pleadings [20] The information and allegations in a statement of claim, or “pleadings”, are a critical requirement for litigation. Pleadings setout the case to which the opposing party must respond: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87. Specific facts, or allegedfacts, are an absolute requirement where a party alleges a breach of a Charter right: Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989]2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485. “Bald allegations”, bare bones or skeletal claims, are not a basis for a lawsuit: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA24.

A filing that does not provide a meaningful basis for the Court and the Defendants to respond is an abuse of court: Unrau v NationalDental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. [21] It appears Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim provides inadequate pleadings. Ms. Stratkotter says there was a “directviolation” of her “... guaranteed Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution ...”. What Charter rights are implicated? TheStatement of Claim does not appear to provide an answer, nor the who, what, where, when, and how of the alleged illegality. Ms.Stratkotter invokes the Criminal Code.

What sections? Who committed the offence(s)? [22] Ms. Stratkotter says there has been “abuse of power” and “negligence”, but provides no specifics as to those allegedillegalities. She implies she is harmed, and experienced “unusual physical and mental abusive punishment”, but provides no explanationof that injury. Her Statement of Claim indicates she no longer has a thyroid gland, but Ms. Stratkotter does not specify any negativeimpact on her that has resulted. [23] The issue of inadequate pleadings is a second independent issue on which I conclude Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claimmay be an abusive filing.

I therefore ask Ms. Stratkotter to provide an explanation for how the Statement of Claim provides the basis fora meaningful response by the Court and the Defendants. D. Impossible or Excessive Remedies [24] Ms. Stratkotter seeks damages of $10.5 million as “a minimum”. She provides no basis for that amount, aside from it is an“Omar Kandar” equivalent. From what I can determine, Ms.

Stratkotter’s claim relates to her being injured by the loss of her thyroidgland, and the pain and injury (that is not explained) that has resulted. [25] The maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed for pain and suffering was set in Andrews v Grand & ToyAlberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 at $100,000. That was for a young adult whose injuries led tonear total disability. After inflation, the Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd general damages cap is now about $365,000.

Ms.Stratkotter’s claim is nearly 29 times the maximum permitted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and, from my review of the pleadings,

Ms. Stratkotter identifies no existing impairment that has resulted from her not having a thyroid gland. [ 26 ] Impossible or disproportionate claims are a characteristic of a hopeless action that warrants a lawsuit being terminated as an abuse of court processes: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625 . I therefore conclude that Ms. Stratkotter’s Statement of Claim may be an abusive proceeding because of the “minimum” damages that she has claimed. IV. Conclusion [ 27 ] Mr. Stratkotter’s November 17, 2020 Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks a response from Ms.

Stratkotter on these questions: 1. Why should the Defendants, other than the Out-of-Country Health Service Committee, and Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel, be parties to the November 17, 2020 Statement of Claim? 2. Why should the Out-of-Country Health Service Committee and Out-of-Country Health Services Appeal Panel be potentially liable when Ms. Stratkotter did not exhaust her judicial mechanisms to obtain the medical care she claims she required? 3. How does the November 17, 2020 Statement of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and the Defendants? 4.

Why is the $10.5 million damages claim not impossible or excessive? [ 28 ] Ms. Stratkotter’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 2001 14028 lawsuit is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Stratkotter has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Stratkotter provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants each have seven days to make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms.

Stratkotter’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 2001 14028 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 29 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action. Ms. Stratkotter’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms. Stratkotter may be served this decision and the interim stay Order by email to the address on her Statement of Claim: “familyfirst@live.ca”.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 10 th day of December, 2020. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Joe D. Spelliscy Duncan Craig LLP for the Defendant Law Society of Alberta