Pascal v Trudeau, 2021 ABQB 105

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Pascal v Trudeau, 2021 ABQB 105 Date: 20210210 Docket: 2101 00179 Registry: Calgary Between: Liliana Pascal Plaintiff - and - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Mr. Trudeau - Prime Minister of Canada) Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On January 8, 2021, Liliana Pascal [Ms.

Pascal] filed a Statement of Claim with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that names “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Mr. Trudeau - Prime Minister of Canada)” as the Defendant(s). Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim makes clear this lawsuit is directed against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau [Prime Minister Trudeau], personally:

... Dear Justin Trudeau do not blame your subordinates, A fish always rots from the head down and not from the tail up. This country has to start with you, in order to see the best country to live. Where there's a will there's a way - You never had a will to make a better way for immigrants, for this country it was a will for yourself. [Sic.] [ 2 ] The Statement of Claim then continues to advance a range of complaints, including: 1. A wide range of allegations and claims that Canadians and Canadian governments mistreat immigrants. 2.

Canadian immigration policy brings in unproductive “lazy people” who do not work, which leads to broad-based hostility to immigrants. Canadian immigration policies also lead to criminals being admitted into Canada: ... Your incredible immigration system allows criminals come, people that looking to rape white women, the black men (they were two or 3 in the car drank) told me that we are their prostitutes and they will f.. us as much as they like, not to f.. with white guys till they don’t f... us, so you got amazing immigration system Mr. Trudea[u]. [Sic.] 3.

Canadian governments provide inadequate social support, such as inadequate mental health, dental, and housing care. Canadian governments discriminate against traumatized people. State and police officials are disrespectful and abusive. 4. Ms. Pascal delivered a child in 2012. Ms. Pascal alleges that she and the child received inadequate medical care. The child was injured in the process. 5. Ms. Pascal has a post-secondary education, but as an immigrant she has been unable to apply that education “... when that is a pure stupidity.” 6. Ms.

Pascal enrolled in courses at CDI College, which she says did not provide her with an appropriate education. 7. COVID-19 was known from 1990, and Prime Minister Trudeau “... made up this nonsense.” 8. Prime Minister Trudeau hates Albertans, including Ms. Pascal, and that is why she has been treated badly: ... Don’t say it is not true- I will not believe you!!

If you didn’t discriminate me based on Province I am, you would’ve reply and look to help me, but you didn’t care. [Sic.] [ 3 ] The Statement of Claim concludes: Conclusion : I would never said anything to you, or anyone, if I was respected as a human in this country, If I was allowed work as a teacher as based on my education and experience I immigrated here, if I was allowed have the baby when I told the doctor that I must have, If my son was healthy and I could go to work to make my own living, if there was special daycares that worked with children with disabilities without traumatize the children, abuse, and hurt and such daycares were approved by Government and checked every week to make sure that employees are not abusers but honest employees, I would never care to say something if doctors monitored my life honestly, told the truth and not hidden from me, If you provided a better economy so at least I ca[n] have more options to make a living.

I would not bother even remember your name if everything was much better. But you Mr. Trudeau created all that, every new Government should improve things but not destroy and fight for seats after 4 years again. Due to Government poor attitude I suffered serious trauma, being cut like an animal. Being sent home and refused to have my baby. Being drugged against my will. Being forced to suffer to the extent to beg for death. The trauma and stress hurt me immensely, hurt my child.

Such pain will never go away, such memories will die when I will die, but I will make sure to write books and send everywhere in this world, so people can read and see how immigrants were treated even in 2020. For my pain no money, no excuses will ever wipe away. Such pain are like the pain of our grandparents that went tru to first war, second war, starvation. When you bring immigrants here, you make sure to bring and kindness, care, support.

If you know that our education is not accepted here, you should never ask us any proof of education or work experience and bring all immigrants equally, but not make us waste lots of money so in the end continue to be mocked and live lonely in this country and getting insane student loan debts. All that is your fault as a dishonest Government. I am disappointed that during this covid I was left with nothing- not enough that I was not able to work and make income for all these years, but even forced to survive on air all these Covid months.

That is my unique statement provided, there is no need to uncover the pain I went thru, I do want to live but not to suffer. I suffered enough, go ahead and suffer you and suffer the way I suffered and come back and tell how it is and see the damages requested will ever cover at least 1% from everything you went thru. The fish rots from the head down-so this country goes wrong from the upper government. [Emphasis in original, sic.] [ 4 ] Ms.

Pascal seeks $150,000 in “[p]unitive and exemplary damages”, $600,000 in general damages, interest, and costs. [ 5 ] I am designated to receive and review potential Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs]. I was referred Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5, and, after review of the Statement of Claim, I concluded in a decision reported as Pascal v Trudeau , 2021 ABQB 69 [ Pascal #1 ] that Ms. Pascal’s lawsuit exhibited four potential issues that warrant a document-based CPN7 “show cause” review. [ 6 ] I therefore requested Ms.

Pascal answer in an up to ten-page Written Submission the following questions: 1. How in law is Prime Minister Trudeau personally liable to Ms. Pascal? 2. How does the January 8, 2020 Statement of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Prime Minister Trudeau personally?

3. Why are damages claimed in the Statement of Claim not impossible or excessive? 4. How does the Statement of Claim assert a right recognized in law, rather than seek acknowledgement and correction of perceived shortcomings of Canadian governments? [ Pascal #1 at para 24 .] [ 7 ] Ms. Pascal’s Written Submission was received on February 5, 2021. After reviewing Ms. Pascal’s Written Submission, I have decided that I may immediately conclude this matter without a Written Reply from the Defendant. II. CPN7 Analysis [ 8 ] Ms. Pascal’s Written Submission is sometimes difficult to understand. Ms.

Pascal rejects the CPN7 procedure as ““... an intimidation tactic” to silence me, the person who dared to question the head of our country Mr. Trudeau. ...”. Ms. Pascal advances new complaints of wrongdoing and harm to herself and other immigrants. She describes finding government actors non-responsive, and, for example, she had to pull out one of her teeth rather than use dental services. [ 9 ] Much of the Written Submission does not respond to the issues and questions set in Pascal #1 . Ms.

Pascal quotes passages from a range of sources, for example Samaroo v Canada Revenue Agency , 2018 BCSC 324 , though many apparently quoted passages are not identified to any particular source. [ 10 ] Other times it appears Ms. Pascal is referencing other litigation. For example, on page four of her Written Submission, she writes about what appears to be a condo dispute: Direct example: “I went to court to sue the board members and management company. Board members are just drinking my blood and harassing me to sell the unit for nothing and go away, instigate other people to violence towards me.

I applied to court, I went to court and the clerks were out of control. On that day the clerk told me that the other party didn't file a statement of defence, October 29, 2020. Few days letter I call and another clerk is saying no file filled. I call again and another clerk tells the same, no file filled. From nowhere November 9, 2020 the lawyer files the file at the 7th floor with the same clerks I spoke and surprisingly using the date of October 22, 2020. This is a Vexatious Litigation.

More shocking that the dear Judge in steady to say no, he allowed, letting this case take forever and me mocked and humiliated. Mr. Judge said that the clerks, 5 I spoke - have no idea what they speak and what they doing. I would understand 2 clerks but when 5 that is not right. That was a vexatious litigation -to annoy me, to humiliate me and show that immigrants that that have no lawyers are stupid and Canadians that uses my condo fees can afford any lawyer and play the law, Mr. Trudeau said play the politics, I say the law.

And such cases will continue with either no winning or few dollars so the rest of the money to go from my pocket to fix other disrespectful people mistakes. That real example is a frivolous case and that will continue because I am immigrant and if I say the truth I get hated. [Sic.] [ 11 ] Ms. Pascal also embeds parts of the Pascal #1 decision in the Written Submission text. Some of her Written Submission alleges facts, which is prohibited by Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 3.68(3) . A. No Allegations Against Prime Minister Trudeau [ 12 ] In Pascal #1 at paras 10-12 , I observed that Ms.

Pascal’s Statement of Claim did not appear to indicate a legal basis for Prime Minister Trudeau to be liable in law to Ms. Pascal. Instead, it seemed Ms. Pascal assigned liability to Mr. Trudeau because he is the leader of the federal government: “The fish rots from the head.” I asked Ms. Pascal identify a legal basis for how Prime Minister Trudeau is personally liable to her in law. [ 13 ] Ms. Pascal’s Written Submission responds to this inquiry in several ways. One is that she explains her litigation “... is against the Government - not P.M.

Trudeau.” It is simply Prime Minister Trudeau’s “bad luck that he is the Prime Minister”. Ms. Pascal indicates she faxed complaints in February 2020 to Prime Minister Trudeau. Ms. Pascal also states in response to this Pascal #1 inquiry: ... What is the point you tried to make? P.M. Trudeau said clearly on his conversation to 630 CHED Mornings - “I”, “I” - “Listen” “Listen”.

I care for Canada, I care for very person, I am the best and conservative parties “As others play politics and focus on me, I’m going to stay focused on Canadians.” ‘’Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday there are politicians in Alberta who are contributing to the less than favourable attitude toward his government. ” So what is the issue on my claim? Mr. Trudeau speaks directly saying his country, he cares for Canadians, he helps Canadians when conservative party - “Play Politics”. That is saying everything and How can I deal with people that - Play Politics?

I go to people that considers better, that acts fair and not help me equally, immigrant. [Emphasis in original, sic.] [ 14 ] Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim does not indicate how the Canadian government engaged with her in an illegal manner. Instead, the plain text of her complaint was about Prime Minister Trudeau. I therefore rule that Ms. Pascal has not identified a basis for how her Statement of Claim establishes liability against the Defendant, and the Statement of Claim should be struck out on that basis. B. Inadequate Pleadings [ 15 ] In Pascal #1 at paras 13-17 , I indicated that Ms.

Pascal’s Statement of Claim did not provide the minimal “who, when, where, how and what” of the alleged illegal conduct. Ms. Pascal responds Prime Minister Trudeau had promised everyone would be treated the same, but Ms. Pascal states she was “not everyone, not an welcomed immigrant. I was left without a tinny support to survive in a strange country quiet far from my family place.” (sic). [ 16 ] While Ms. Pascal’s Written Submission includes variations on her Statement of Claim’s complaints, the Written Submission

does not establish that the Statement of Claims met the minimum pleadings threshold for a meaningful Court and Defendant response. Itherefore conclude the Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court’s processes, and should be struck out on that basis: Unrau v NationalDental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. C. Impossible or Excessive Remedies [17] Pascal #1 at paras 18-20 reviews how the Supreme Court of Canada in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 set a maximum for general damages awarded by Canadian courts for persons who suffernear total disability.

Ms. Pascal claims almost twice that amount. Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim also did not indicate any basis for a$150,000 punitive damages award. I asked Ms. Pascal explain why her damages claims were not impossible or excessive remedies. [18] Ms. Pascal responded that she has suffered for eight years, had to live alone, and “I felt extremely discriminated and hated.”She then observes that a class action by “Black civil servants” sought $900 million in compensation, and claims by female RCMPofficers and employees led to $250 million in settlements.

She concludes: “250 millions in compare with 650,000 is nothing.” [19] I reject Ms. Pascal’s argument. Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd remains the binding authority on this point. Ms. Pascalhas sought impossible and excessive damages, which is a further separate basis I conclude this action is hopeless and should beterminated as an abuse of court processes: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. D. Proceedings with an Improper Purpose [20] The final issue to which I requested Ms.

Pascal provide a response was how her lawsuit was not an abuse of process becausethat Statement of Claim sought “... the acknowledgement and correction of perceived government shortcomings, as distinct fromasserting a right recognized at law...”, which is a “... [hallmark] of vexatious proceedings, and a vexatious litigant.” (Van Sluytman vMuskoka (District Municipality), 2018 ONCA 32 at paras 23-24, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38057 (1 November 2018)): Pascal #1at paras 21-23. [21] Ms. Pascal’s Written Submission does not provide a meaningful response to this question.

I therefore conclude this defect isfourth separate basis on which to strike out Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim. III. Conclusion [22] Ms. Pascal’s January 8, 2021 Statement of Claim is struck out in toto, on four separate bases. No costs will be ordered sincethis CPN7 process was initiated by a referral pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General), 2019ABQB 565 at para 6. [23] Counsel for the Defendant shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Pascal’s approval of that Orderis dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms.

Pascal may be served this decision and the final Order by email to the address on herStatement of Claim: “courtcase2019@yahoo.com”. [24] From her Written Submission, Ms. Pascal appears to be involved in other litigation. I very strongly recommend that Ms.Pascal consult with a lawyer, or with a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, or theUniversity of Calgary Student Legal Assistance program. I believe Ms. Pascal would greatly benefit from this kind of assistance inpursuing (or not pursuing) her complaints and concerns.

Dated at Calgary, Alberta this 10th day of February, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Liliana Pascal Self-represented Litigant