Wang v Alberta, 2020 ABQB 800

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wang v Alberta, 2020 ABQB 800 Date: 20201218 Docket: 1901 12788 Registry: Calgary Between: Xiaoli Lily Wang and Daiming Robert Li Respondent / Plaintiffs - and - Government of Alberta Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On October 30, 2020, Xiaoli Lily Wang [Ms. Wang] and Daiming Robert Li [Mr. Li] provided to me (by email) an unfiled costs application in this matter, and a supporting affidavit of Ms. Wang dated the same day. The costs order seeks:

1. An Order awarding costs, punitive cost, and disbursement to the Plaintiffs, self-represented litigants. 2. Costs of this application. [Sic.] [ 2 ] On November 2, 2020, I ordered that the Clerk of the Court file Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s cost application and supporting affidavit. Those documents were filed on November 3, 2020. On November 2, 2020, I also issued written instructions on how this application would proceed as a document-based procedure: 1. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li may make written submissions of up to 10-pages, due November 16, 2020. 2.

The Respondents may make written submissions of up to 10-pages and file affidavit evidence of no more than 10 pages, due November 30, 2020. 3. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li may make written rebuttal submissions of up to 5-pages, due December 14, 2020. [ 3 ] Those materials have now been received. A history of this matter is useful to better explain how Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s costs application will now be resolved. II. Timeline [ 4 ] On September 12, 2019, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li filed a Statement of Claim that named the “Government of Alberta” as the only Defendant.

The Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered damages “... caused by Government of Alberta’s flawed provincial legislation, namely Public Health Act RSA 2000, c P-37 .” (emphasis in original). The Plaintiffs claim that they have suffered damages because the Public Health Act does not contain a definition of “private dwelling”. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li claimed $1.3 million in damages. [ 5 ] Counsel for the Defendant, on October 31, 2019, referred Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s Statement of Claim for review as an Apparently Vexatious Application of Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7].

I concluded in a decision reported as Wang v Government of Alberta , 2019 ABQB 869 [ Wang #1 ] that the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim exhibited prima facie fatal defects. [ 6 ] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li made submissions on why they claimed their lawsuit had a valid basis. I rejected those, and the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim was struck out in a decision reported as Wang v Alberta , 2019 ABQB 948 [ Wang #2 ]. [ 7 ] In light of the outcome in Wang #2 , and Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li’s record of abusive litigation, on February 20, 2020, I initiated on the Court’s own motion a process under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to evaluate whether Ms. Wang and Mr. Li ought to be subject to court access restriction gatekeeping: Wang v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 130 [ Wang #3 ].

I concluded that the September 12, 2019 Statement of Claim was: 1. a collateral attack that attempted to re-litigate issues settled during previous actions; 2. a hopeless proceeding, and 3. an escalating and expanding proceeding that traced back to an original 2014 dispute. [ Wang #3 at paras 7-13 .] [ 8 ] Further, I concluded that Ms. Wang and Mr. Li had an established pattern of persistent unsuccessful appeals, and they had a record of making unfounded allegations of misconduct, such as perjury and conspiracy: Wang #3 at paras 14-16 . [ 9 ] Deadlines were set for submissions on whether Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li should be subject to court access restriction gatekeeping. Third parties who were the targets of earlier and now concluded litigation by Ms. Wang and Mr. Li were permitted to participate in this process: Wang #3 at para 20 . [ 10 ] On September 23, 2020, the Court discontinued the court access restriction process initiated in Wang #3 as the Alberta Court of Appeal in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 had ruled that this Court only possessed a residual authority to on its own motion impose court access restrictions.

The written decision that terminated the court access restriction process ( Wang v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 557 [ Wang #4 ]) concluded: For clarity, Wang v Alberta #3 and this Endorsement do not prejudice or limit an application to impose court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1 by an appropriate party or parties. [ 11 ] The current costs application by Ms. Wang and Mr. Li is in response to Wang #4 . [ 12 ] Following Wang #4 , the parties were unable to agree on the text of a court order to give effect to that decision.

That led to me issuing Wang v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 754 [ Wang #5 ] where I made several conclusions. First, I concluded that the Plaintiffs’ objection to a paragraph in the Order that gave effect to the Wang #4 paragraph quoted above “... had no basis whatsoever ...”, and that Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li had unnecessarily lengthened and delayed proceedings, meeting criteria specified in Rule 10.33(2). [ 13 ] More directly relevant to the outcome of this application is that I also, in Wang #5 at paras 9-11 , explained the roles of the participants in Wang #3 and Wang #4 , in relation to a dispute on who should be named in the Order’s style of cause: [9] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li are incorrect to identify Alberta Health Services and Ayuk Eyong as “respondents”. These persons are not properly third parties under the Rules , unless so named by a Court Order issued after a formal application brought before the Court.

I also

note that not only were pleadings in the Docket 1901 12788 action closed long before Alberta Health Services and Ayuk Eyong becameinvolved, but the same was true of the lawsuit itself. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s Statement of Claim had been already struck out in Wang vAlberta #2. [10] Instead, it is Ms. Wang and Mr. Li who were the respondents to the now terminated court access procedure that was initiated by theCourt in Wang v Alberta #3. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li are also the plaintiffs in Docket 1901 12788.

This simply illustrates that the “backand forth” of common law litigation means the same persons may, at different times, wear different hats. [11] In Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 271-278 I observed that abusive litigants frequentlyengaged in “procedural nitpicking”, an excessive focus on procedure and formalities. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s focus on the form of orderstyle of cause is an example of that. [14] Costs were awarded against Ms. Wang and Mr. Li for their frustration of a final form of order to conclude Wang #4: Wang #5at para 13. III.

Submissions [15] Submissions were received from Ms. Wang and Mr. Li on November 16, 2020. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta[Alberta] in a November 30, 2020 letter took no position since paragraph 12 of the costs application indicated that Ms. Wang and Mr. Liare not seeking costs from Alberta. [16] Separate submissions were received Alberta Health Services [AHS] and AHS and Ayuk Eyong [AHS and Mr. Eyong]. Thesedifferent participants were originally defending parties in two separate lawsuits filed by Ms. Wang and Mr. Li. A. Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li [17] The Applicants state they should receive costs because they were the successful parties in Wang #4, citing Rule 10.29(1). Ms.Wang and Mr. Li note they made written submissions in the court access restriction process. The Applicants identify Edmonton (PoliceService) v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2019 ABQB 864 as providing the appropriate principles and factors thatapply when self-represented persons seek costs. [18] The crux of Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s argument is, however, that they are the victims of the opposing parties in the Wang #3court access restriction process.

They point to Dechant v Law Society of Alberta, 2001 ABCA 81 at para 21, where the Court of Appealindicated that when considering whether costs ought to be ordered in favour of self-represented litigants [SRLs], a Court should evaluateopposing party conduct, and, specifically: ... Did the other side take advantage of the fact that they were facing unrepresented litigants by taking frivolous and unnecessary steps tothwart that litigant? Did the other side refuse to entertain reasonable requests to discuss settlement? ... [19] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li say actions by AHS and Mr.

Eyong were clearly “... for improper, frivolous and collateral purposes ...”,that the Applicants were taken advantage of, and subject to a “collective attack”. Further, the Applicants indicate they on October 22,2020 offered to settle the question of costs for $1,000 from each of the opposing parties, but that was rejected. The fact that counsel forAHS and Mr. Eyong rejected that offer means they should now pay double costs. [20] Furthermore, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li say they are due punitive costs.

They argue that that the Government of Alberta was the“only legal opposing party” in the Wang #3 court access restriction process. Other participants were acting for “collateral purposes toattack the Plaintiffs”. Submissions made in relation to Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li are: ... spreading gossips “that the Plaintiffs exhibit indicia of vexatious litigants” to attack the Plaintiffs’ integrity and reputation in theGovernment of Alberta from last year, and then teamed up with [Alberta] by taking frivolous and unscrupulous steps to thwart thePlaintiffs. [Alberta] has played a disgraced role in the issuance of the Court’s interim access restriction order of November 13, 2019. Theconduct of these individuals and AHS and [Alberta] contributes to abuse of the court and litigation misconduct deserving punishment. [21] Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li made a range of complaints about opposing parties in this and earlier actions, concluding that Ms.Wang and Mr. Li “... have clearly been taken unfair advantage of procedurally ...”, and therefore “[a]warding punitive costs areappropriate and justified.” Ms. Wang and Mr. Li do not request a specific quantum of costs in their Written Submission. B. AHS (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 1401 10235) [22] AHS identifies as a third-parties to the litigation.

It acknowledges that the Court has jurisdiction to impose costs on it, butargues it should not be subject to a cost award for several reasons. [23] First, AHS disputes whether Ms. Wang and Mr. Li were successful, as defined in Rule 10.29. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li made noapplication. What happened was Jonsson v Lymer changed the law, and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had no legal authority tocontinue the process initiated in Wang #3.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that an outcome resulting from a “change of law” is nota basis for a costs award: Holmes Foundry Ltd v Village of Point Edward, , 39 DLR (2d) 621 (Ont CA). [24] AHS says that, as it is a non-party, the costs order sought by Ms. Wang and Mr. Li is always an exceptional remedy: Patersonv Hamilton, at para 5, 202 AR 34 (Alta QB); Symphony Group plc v Hodgson, [1993] 4 All ER 143 (UK CA). IfMs. Wang and Mr. Li were to seek costs from AHS, the proper approach would be to add AHS as a party. Procedural fairness requiredMs. Wang and Mr.

Li give notice that they would seek costs against AHS, as a non-party: 358427 Alberta Inc v Monenco Advisory

Services Ltd , 1998 ABQB 16 at para 17 . [ 25 ] Furthermore, AHS stresses that it was the Court that initiated and directed the Wang #3 court access restriction process. AHS was invited by the Court to make submissions, and was not the “real promoter” who initiated or triggered the Wang #3 court access restriction process. AHS argues that Edmonton (Police Service) v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) does not actually support a costs award in favour of Ms. Wang and Mr. Li, and, instead, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li have not advanced evidence that would warrant that step.

There is no basis for punitive damages. [ 26 ] AHS submits Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s costs applications should be dismissed, and that AHS should receive costs. C. AHS and Ayuk Eyong (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 1601 02222) [ 27 ] AHS and Mr. Eyong argue that the costs application should be dismissed. AHS and Mr. Eyong point out that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench generally does not impose costs when the Court initiates an abusive litigation management process on its own motion: e.g. Varghese v Bhanji , 2019 ABQB 457 ; Bissky v Macleod , 2019 ABQB 179 . AHS and Mr.

Eyong say they are third parties who made submissions on the invitation of the Court. They therefore should not be subject to a costs award. [ 28 ] AHS and Mr. Eyong also note there was no successful party in the Wang #3 procedure. The process simply stopped. The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had no jurisdiction to initiate and conduct Wang #3 . [ 29 ] Like AHS, AHS and Mr. Eyong argue that the Edmonton (Police Service) v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) factors do not favour a cost award to these SRLs, and, in any case, Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li have not provided evidence to test those criteria. As for Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s offer to settle argument based on Rules 4.29(1) and 10.33(2)(h), AHS and Mr. Eyong say that those Rules do not apply in this context. [ 30 ] AHS and Mr. Eyong reject that punitive costs would be warranted in this matter. They were invited to make submissions. There is nothing improper about that. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li have identified no improper steps taken by AHS and Mr. Eyong. Rather, the baseless allegations of serious litigation misconduct that purportedly ground the punitive costs award are, themselves, a reason why Ms.

Wang and Mr. Li should not receive costs. D. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s Rebuttal Submissions [ 31 ] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s rebuttal submissions do not only respond to the arguments advanced by AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong, but also include a number of new allegations: 1. AHS and Mr. Eyong’s written submissions breached an order of this Court because that document was 31 pages long, rather than 10 pages. 2. The manner in which AHS served its written submissions is “typical abuse of court and court process.” 3.

A difficult to understand allegation apparently involving Charter , ss 11 and 15: The Applicants’ equality right under s.15 (i.e., “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection”) and evidence in trial right under s. 11 of the Charter (i.e., the suspicious 32 unknow initials claimed $307,959.50) have all been infringed. The unfair process is being taken advantage to cover up the opposing party’s unlawful actions with possible crimes of fraud and perjury against the victims who are the Applicants, Self-represented Litigants. [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 32 ] Ms.

Wang and Mr. Li also claim that when I terminated the court access restriction order process in Wang #4 , that meant that “... [ Wang #1 ] and all subsequent court decisions all been reversed.” Ms. Wang and Mr. Li say the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled in Girao v Cunningham , 2020 ONCA 260 that opposing counsel have an obligation to ensure trial fairness where one party is self- represented, pursuant to Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 . [ 33 ] Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li continue to argue that they have been abused, and any processes that would conclude otherwise: ... are biased and of violation of the principles of fundamental justice and procedural fairness. It further violates the Principles on Self- represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision Pintea v. Johns . [Emphasis in original.] [ 34 ] Not only that, but Mr. Wang and Ms.

Li now also say that the Wang #3 process abused them, and was “... defectively designed ... from the very beginning because they are self-represented litigants and the selected opposing parties are only limited to government entities. ...” [emphasis in original]. As I understand their submissions, I believe Ms. Wang and Mr. Li are arguing that the Wang #3 process was “defectively designed” and abusive because Wang #3 did not explicitly invite submissions from a lawyer who formerly represented Ms. Wang and Mr. Li, and whom Ms. Wang and Mr. Li were then suing. [ 35 ] Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li say that AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong, should be subject to cost awards because they chose to participate in the Wang #3 court access restriction process: ... The fact of that they don’t seek a judgement in their respective actions but jumped into the action of [Alberta] speaks loudly that they believe [Alberta] would receive some preferential treatment in the court that they could benefit from it. [Counsel for AHS] style of cause clearly illustrates how he takes unfair advantage procedurally by deliberately putting his client next to the Government of Alberta.

This behavior contributes to professional misconduct deserving sanction.

[36] Last, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li argued that a further basis for an order of punitive costs against AHS and Mr. Eyong emergedduring the written argument process to evaluate possible costs. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li say that Counsel for AHS and Ms.

Eyong has “...violated the code of professional conduct for the profession governed by the Law Society of Alberta.” The “professional misconduct” inquestion is that Counsel “... demonize, marginalize, and disempower them as unrepresented litigants ...” (emphasis in original), citing a“blog” post by University of Windsor law professor Julie Macfarlane (National Self-Represented Litigants Project, “Name-CallingAside: The Problem with the “Unrepresented” vs. “Self-Represented” Distinction” (8 December 2020), online (blog): Slaw<www.slaw.ca/2020/12/08/name-calling-aside-the-problem-with-the-unrepresented-vs-self-represented-distinction/comment-page-1/>).

III. Analysis [37] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s costs application is dismissed. While I agree with all the submissions made by AHS, and AHS andMr. Eyong, the answer to whether Ms. Wang and Mr. Li had any basis for this claim is really very simple. [38] The Court started the court access restriction process in Wang #3. The Court ended the court access restriction process inWang #4 due to the intervening decision of the Court of Appeal in Jonsson v. Lymer. There were no “winners” or “losers”. The endresult is nothing has happened, post Wang #2.

No costs are warranted because Rule 10.29(1) has no application. [39] Even if Ms. Wang and Mr. Li were somehow “winners”, they are still not due costs because AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong,are third parties who participated in the court access restriction process at the Court’s invitation.

Now, if AHS, and AHS and Mr.Eyong’s, participation was in some manner an abuse of the Court, then the outcome might, potentially, in exceptional circumstances(Paterson v Hamilton), warrant my exercising my broad costs authority provided by Rules 10.31 and 10.33. [40] I find as fact there has been no litigation misconduct by AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong. I find as fact that the submissionsmade by the third parties during the Wang #3 process were fair, balanced, and justified. As for “spreading gossip” of bad conduct by Ms.Wang and Mr.

Li that is “... abuse of the court and litigation misconduct deserving punishment ...”, I observe that it is not merely theDefendant Alberta, and the third parties to this litigation, who have criticized Ms. Wang and Mr. Li for their actions. The Court has donethe same. [41] The Court already found in Wang #3 at paras 7-16 that Ms. Wang and Mr. Li had engaged in serious abusive litigation,including collateral attacks, engaging in hopeless proceedings, conducting abusive persistent appeals, and that all that abuse of Albertacourts is nested within a larger pattern of expanding litigation and dispute misconduct.

After that, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li disputed theform of order for Wang #4, so that in Wang #5, I concluded that Ms. Wang and Mr. Li should be penalized by costs for the resultingdelay, abuse of Court processes, and waste of litigant resources. [42] So I reject that AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong, are “gossip spreaders”. Instead, what they said then, and say now, is the truth.Ms. Wang and Mr. Li are abusive litigants.

They have persistently misused this Court and other courts’ procedures in the past, and theypersistently continue to do so through to the present. [43] So with that background established, a closer look at Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s Rebuttal Submission is warranted because thatsimply illustrates that Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s pattern of persistent abusive litigation continues unabated. [44] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li claim that AHS and Mr. Eyong are in contempt of court for filing a 31-page document, rather than oneof up to ten pages.

The document in question has a cover page, a title page, an index page, nine pages of argument, one page listingauthorities, and attached two court decision that total 18 pages – thus, I find that the “active” submissions were 9 pages - less than 10pages. I received essentially the same formalistic complaint from vexatious litigant Chinedu Gideon Ubah in Ubah v Canadian NaturalResources Limited, 2020 ABQB 554 at para 27, where I concluded his complaint was “... trivial, technical, frivolous, and abusive. ...”.The same applies here. Like Mr. Ubah, Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li are very experienced SRLs, so I find as fact that Ms. Wang and Mr. Li areperfectly well aware that their page-length allegation had no good faith basis. They are fighting because they like to fight. [45] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s claim that Wang #4 has unwound all previous decisions in this matter, and somehow resuscitated theiroriginal lawsuit, is a collateral attack on Wang #2, and an abuse of process. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li have already exhausted their right tochallenge Wang #2. Justice Paperny of the Alberta Court of Appeal denied Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li permission to appeal Wang #2 onJanuary 20, 2020, and then denied reconsideration of that decision on January 22, 2020. [46] If Ms. Wang and Mr. Li want to challenge Wang #2, then their only appropriate avenue would have been (the time to appealhas now passed) an appeal of that decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which was not filed. [47] Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li’s new Charter complaint is both a further example of their ongoing pattern of making baselessallegations of conspiracy, fraud, and perjury (Wang #3 at paras 15-16), but those Charter claims are also abusive as failing to provide anadequate basis for the Court or opposing parties to respond (Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 626-630; Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485). Ms. Wang and Mr. Li say their Charter s 11right or rights were breached. Which one? There are nine distinct rights identified in Charter ss 11(a-i).

Furthermore, Charter s 11 relatesto persons “... charged with an offense ...”. As far as I can tell, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li were not facing criminal proceedings. [48] It is difficult to even know where to start on the allegation that the phrase “unrepresented litigant” as a pejorative thatdemonizes, marginalizes, and disempowers persons who appear in court without a lawyer.

I will simply note that the Supreme Court ofCanada has used that exact language in their decisions, for example in Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC43 at para 54, where Karakatsanis J discussed the obligation of trial judges to assist “unrepresented litigants”. I think it would beextremely inappropriate for me to sanction Counsel for AHS and Mr. Eyong for using language used by the highest court of the nation. [49] In

summary, I find as fact:

1. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li have no basis to seek costs from the litigation third parties who were invited to participate in the Wang #3 process; 2. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s persistent allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and perjury by the opposing parties in this and other actions has no basis in fact, and are bald allegations, or are knowingly false allegations made in bad faith; 3. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s application for costs, and the manner in which that application was conducted, are an abuse of the Court’s processes; and 4. Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li’s demand for punitive costs is an impossible remedy and an abuse of process, since Ms. Wang and Mr. Li provided no factual basis for that. [ 50 ] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s costs application is dismissed. There is no basis here for costs, let alone punitive costs. I conclude that Alberta, AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong have conducted their litigation in a proper, fair, and reasonable manner. IV. Costs [ 51 ] An elevated punitive and deterrent costs award is appropriate against Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li for their first bringing this Application, and then the manner in which they have conducted themselves: Rules 10.29(1), 10.33. In light of Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s continuing and persistent abuse of court processes, I conclude that this litigation should be brought to a close “... swiftly and decisively ...” by a lump sum award: Fiander v Mills , 2015 NLCA 31 at para 56 . [ 52 ] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li shall pay, forthwith: $4,000 to AHS, and $4,000 to AHS and Mr. Eyong, collectively, for a total of $8,000. [ 53 ] No cost award will be made in favour of Alberta since Ms. Wang and Mr.

Li did not seek costs from Alberta, and Alberta did not participate in the written submission process that led to this decision. V. Conclusion [ 54 ] Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s costs application is dismissed. Rather, Ms. Wang and Mr. Li shall pay costs to the third party Respondents, forthwith. [ 55 ] Counsel for AHS, and AHS and Mr. Eyong, shall prepare the draft Orders giving effect to this decision. Ms. Wang and Mr. Li’s approval of those Orders is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). [ 56 ] As far as I am aware this decision concludes this action.

Mindful of my obligations pursuant to Pintea v Johns to SRLs, I note to Ms. Wang and Mr. Li that if they disagree with this result, their remedy is to seek an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 18 th day of December, 2020. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Xiaoli Lily Wang and Daiming Robert Li Self-Represented Litigants Andrea Simmonds

Legal Services Division Alberta Justice For the Government of Alberta Bryan L. Gallant Carbert Waite LLP for Alberta Health Services and Ayuk Eyong Stephen M. Torscher Miller Thomson LLP for Alberta Health Services