Gingell v Edmonton Remand Centre, 2020 ABQB 812

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Gingell v Edmonton Remand Centre, 2020 ABQB 812 Date: 20201223 Docket: 1903 24606 Registry: Edmonton Between: Jordy Edward Gingell Plaintiff - and - Edmonton Remand Center and Evan Peacock Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On December 3, 2019 Jordy Edward Gingell (Mr.

Gingell) filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench a Statement of Claim naming as Defendants “New Edmonton Remand Center, Director of Edmonton Remand Center: Steve Phillips. Correctional Officer Edmonton Remand Center, CPO2 E. Peacock”. On May 25, 2020, Mr. Gingell filed a second Statement of Claim with certain

amended information, and that removed Steve Phillips as a Defendant. [ 2 ] Mr. Gingell’s Amended Statement of Claim was referred to me by the Clerk of the Court as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5. I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. I concluded in a decision reported as Gingell v Edmonton Remand Centre , 2020 ABQB 653 ( Gingell #1 ) that Mr.

Gingell’s Amended Statement of Claim was an AVAP and should be subject to a CPN7 show- cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . Mr. Gingell had 14 days to provide a Written Submission of up to ten pages that responded to four issues that were a potential basis to strike out his action in whole or in part: Gingell #1 at para 22 . [ 3 ] On December 10, 2020, I received an “Applicant’s Brief” from lawyer Claire Brown that states Ms. Brown: 1. has been retained by Mr. Gingell in this matter; 2. has concluded Mr.

Gingell’s initial Statement of Claim required revision; and 3. is “in the process of obtaining consent” to file a further amended Statement of Claim that was attached to the Applicant’s Brief. [ 4 ] Ms. Brown concludes: I trust that the Amended Amended Amended Statement of Claim will cure the majority of the deficiencies his Lordship noted in Mr. Gingell’s Statement of Claim. I will be asking the Court’s permission to file the Amended Amended Amended Statement of Claim. ... To the extent that this does not satisfy the Court’s inquiries, I am happy to provide additional submissions on request. [ 5 ] Mr.

Gingell retaining counsel to assist with his lawsuit is a positive litigation step that warrants discontinuing the CPN7 process. I will not further comment on the substance of Mr. Gingell’s proposed replacement Statement of Claim. [ 6 ] Mr. Gingell has 30 days from the date of this Memorandum of Decision to either: 1. file a replacement Statement of Claim; or 2. apply to the Court to file a replacement Statement of Claim. [ 7 ] If Mr. Gingell does not take either of those steps within that deadline, then the Respondent may request by letter addressed to Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen that Mr.

Gingell’s current Statement of Claim be struck out on the bases identified in Gingell #1 . [ 8 ] No costs are associated with this decision in light of Mr. Gingell retaining counsel to advance his lawsuit, and since this Court does not usually order costs when a CPN7 process is initiated by a CPN7 paragraph 5 referral of an AVAP by the Clerk of the Court: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 565 at para 6 . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 23 rd day of December, 2020. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Claire K.

Brown Engel Law Office for Jordy Edward Gingell Hillary Flaherty Justice and Solicitor General for the Defendants