Ellis v Szawlowski, 2021 ABQB 164

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ellis v Szawlowski, 2021 ABQB 164 Date: 20210303 Docket: 2103 00262 Registry: Edmonton Between: Craig Ellis Plaintiff - and - A. Szawlowski, City of Edmonton (Edmonton Police Service, Police Seize Vehicle Section), Alberta Government (Alberta Transportation Safety) Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On January 20, 2021, Craig Ellis (Mr. Ellis) filed a Statement of Claim naming Edmonton Police Service Officer A.

Szawlowski, the City of Edmonton (City of Edmonton (Edmonton Police Service, Police Seize Vehicle Section), and the Alberta Transportation Safety Board (ATSB)) (incorrectly named the Alberta Government (Alberta Transportation Safety) as Defendants (2021 Action). On January 26, 2021, Counsel for the ATSB referred Mr. Ellis’s Statement of Claim to the Court as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. I am the judge assigned to review the

AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 2 ] Counsel for the ATSB also included documents from a previous 2019 lawsuit by Mr. Ellis, Ellis v Szawlowski , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 1903 14530 (2019 Action), that involved the same Defendants and related events. The 2019 Action was struck out on November 14, 2019 by Master Birkett pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . [ 3 ] In a written decision reported as Ellis v Szawlowski , 2021 ABQB 103 ( Ellis #1 ), I concluded that Mr.

Ellis’s 2021 Statement of Claim was an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 document-based show-cause review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court . Mr.

Ellis was asked to prepare an up to ten-page Written Submission that responded to four questions: 1) Why are the 2021 Action and the 2019 Action not duplicate or overlapping litigation? 2) Why is the 2021 Action not a collateral attack on the November 14, 2019 Order of Master Birkett? 3) How does the 2021 Action Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 4) How is the 2021 Action not an abuse of process as Mr.

Ellis has not exhausted his alternative administrative regime remedies against the ATSB and Officer Szawlowski? ( Ellis #1 at para 24 .) [ 4 ] The deadline for Mr. Ellis to submit his Written Submission has passed. No response has been received to the four Ellis #1 questions. I therefore strike out the Docket 2103 00262 Statement of Claim, pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 5 ] 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. The 2021 Statement of Claim seeks unspecified general damages. I therefore order Mr.

Ellis pay the ATSB $1,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 6 ] Counsel for the ATSB shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Ellis’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3 rd day of March, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Shaheer Meenai Legal Services Division Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Defendant Alberta Transportation Safety Board