Oldford v Medicine Hat Catholic Board of Education, 2021 ABQB 126

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Oldford v Medicine Hat Catholic Board of Education, 2021 ABQB 126 Date: 20210219 Docket: 2008 00362 Registry: Medicine Hat Between: Stephen Douglas Oldford Plaintiff - and - Medicine Hat Catholic Board of Education Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On October 29, 2020, Stephan Douglas Oldford [Mr. Oldford] filed a Statement of Claim naming the Medicine Hat Catholic Board of Education [the Board] as the Defendant.

Mr. Oldford’s action relates to a child of Mr. Oldford who was attending and receiving instruction in two Medicine Hat schools operated by the Board. [ 2 ] Mr. Oldford describes how his child, who is not identified by name, attended school in 2018-2020. Mr. Oldford indicates his child has disabilities, and has cerebral palsy. It appears the child had an aide assigned to assist with the child’s school needs. Mr. Oldford

describes how the schools would often request that Mr. Oldford pick up his child because the child was “acting out”, and “behaviour issues such as biting, hitting, and kicking the staff and fellow peers.” Mr. Oldford says that his child did not attend the full school day, and is therefore not socializing with his peers, which is unfair and not right. Mr. Oldford complains that his child has not received adequate support, and attributes that to a lack of training for school staff, inadequate and/or temporary educational assistants, and “proper redirection” that “would prevent the problems.” [ 3 ] Mr.

Oldford complains that sending his son home is the wrong solution and impractical: ... The school is failing my sons self-esteem and he is being punished for every poor decision he makes while attending school instead of utilizing redirection. ... Every time my child acts out they decide that he should be sent home instead of redirection and they blame it on my son being overwhelmed but this is due to a lack of training. [Sic.] [ 4 ] Mr. Oldford indicates he has repeatedly attempted to resolve his concerns with the school principals, the Board’s Superintendent, but he has not been satisfied with those outcomes.

On October 19, 2020, Mr. Oldford withdrew his child from the Board’s school that the child had been attending. Mr. Oldford reports that afterwards he contacted the Board but the Board’s secretary said Mr. Oldford “... was no longer entitled to speak to them because my children were no longer attending their district anymore.” [ 5 ] Mr. Oldford seeks as remedies: ...

Written acknowledgement from the catholic school board that the school is neglecting in redirection and training on behalf of my child. ... 275,000 for emotional, psychological damages for my son and $2,000 in general damages due to the schools unnecessary stress and fear to return to school due to the schools negligence. [Sic.] [ 6 ] On January 21, 2021, Counsel for the Board referred Mr. Oldford’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. Counsel for the Board also included an Alberta Human Rights Commission [AHRC] complaint by Mr. Oldford against the Board that makes allegations related to Mr. Oldford’s Statement of Claim. [ 7 ] In a decision reported as Oldford v Medicine Hat Catholic Board of Education , 2021 ABQB 79 [ Oldford #1 ], I concluded that Mr. Oldford’s Statement of Claim was an AVAP that should be reviewed by CPN7. I requested Mr. Oldford respond with a Written Submission that answered five questions: 1. How may Mr.

Oldford sue on behalf of an unnamed minor third party? 2. How does the October 29, 2020 Statement of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendant? 3. Why are damages claimed in the Statement of Claim not impossible or excessive? 4. Why should the Court permit this litigation when Mr. Oldford has alternative mechanisms to obtain a remedy? 5. Why should the Court permit this litigation when Mr. Oldford has already initiated a related complaint with the AHRC, and the AHRC has sole jurisdiction over allegations of discrimination? [ Oldford #1 at para 30 .] [ 8 ] Mr.

Oldford had two weeks to provide his Written Submission pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 3(b). That time has elapsed and no Written Submission has been received from Mr. Oldford. I, therefore, pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 3(c), strike out Mr. Oldford’s Statement of Claim. Mr. Oldford’s Statement of Claim is a hopeless and abusive proceeding. [ 9 ] When an action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g.

Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9 ; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta , 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43 ; Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6 . I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. [ 10 ] Mr. Oldford sought $277,000 in damages. Given that quantum, and Alberta Rules of Court

Schedule C, I order Mr. Oldford pay the Board $1,350 in costs, forthwith. Counsel for the Board shall prepare and serve the court Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Oldford’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Medicine Hat, Alberta this 19 th day of February, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Alexis N. Moulton McLennan Ross LLP for the Defendant