Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 175

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 175 Date: 20210305 Dockets: 2001 12768, 2101 01670 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket 2001 12768 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Telus Defendant And between: Docket 2101 01670 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Koodo Mobile Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the

Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On February 17, 2021, Counsel for Telus Communications Inc. [TCI] [1] referred to the Court two Statements of Claim filed by Janice Dmyterko [Ms. Dmyterko] as candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. Counsel for TCI alleged that this litigation was frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. [ 2 ] Both of Ms.

Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim are handwritten documents. Each makes unusual claims. A. Dmyterko v Telus - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12768 [ 3 ] The 2001 12768 filing provides a narrative of what Ms. Dmyterko calls a “break in” that starts with two unnamed TCI employees installing an Internet service box at a property that was rented by Ms. Dmyterko. One TCI employee “... was an extra tall blonde guy (giant).” A third person, Judy Sharratt, who appears to be Ms. Dmyterko’s landlord, was also present. The Statement of Claim also states Ms.

Sharratt is the owner of “the Sharratt Mint” and “[t]his situation resulted in a huge counterfeit situation in Alberta and BC, and possibly countrywide.” [ 4 ] Ms. Dmyterko had to go to work and left before the instillation was complete. Next, the Statement of Claim states: Within a few days I had done some laundry. I noticed the dryer had a square piece of metal cut out of it on the inside. The cut was 2”x 3” cut. [ 5 ] The Statement of Claim continues to report Ms. Dmyterko asked Judy Sharratt if she had let the TCI employees in, and Judy said “Yes”. Ms.

Dmyterko alleges the TCI employees “... stole intellectual property and went through my boxes of documents ...”, and “Judy divulged info to me indicating she was in my files.” The Statement of Claim states after the “break in” Judy Sharratt began wearing jewelry, had new glasses and clothing, and “I noticed a change in her.” Ms. Dmyterko alleges that Judy Sharratt was “paid off” to let the TCI employees into her residence where there was “a lot of intellectual property.” [ 6 ] Ms.

Dmyterko also states that she examined and photographed the Internet service box, and “[t]here wasn’t anything in it.” [ 7 ] Some passages in the Statement of Claim are difficult to understand, such as: See also George Clooney, Brad Pitt and their troop claim I’ve submitted. The people who got to Judy were probably linked to him due to the series of events after my phone call to Apple Computer executive. (See also Apple computer claim.) ... Also Telus owns a skyscraper apartment complex in Calgary called Telus Sky .

They copied the word I recently used for my email and are trying to get rentals for that place in Calgary. I called them but they made me wait on the phone line on hold for so long. [Emphasis in original.] [ 8 ] The 2001 12768 Statement of Claim seeks as remedies: 1. return of stolen “... intellectual property and its paperwork, images, notes, audio, video, etc ...”, 2. $55 billion in compensation for “theft and hardship”, 3. a watch, 4. $2 million for recovery of Ms.

Dmyterko’s social insurance card, passport, and birth certificate, 5. $52 billion for stress and a sabotaged career, 6. $3 million for “credit rating issues”, 7. “all gross revenues” and 20% interest per day “... made off my ideas ...”, and $35 billion and $15 billion for each “version” of those ideas, 8. $40 billion for “lost opportunity costs”, 9. a “remedy asap” for Ms. Dmyterko being “... stuck in shelters since 2019 and homeless ...”, 10. $50 billion in “... compensation for 24 hrs of each day since that break in, up to now/my full recovery of my health and career”, and

11. $3 million for “health recovery compensation”. [ 9 ] The 2001 12768 Statement of Claim then attaches a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . B. Dmyterko v Koodo Mobile - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 01670 [ 10 ] Ms. Dmyterko’s second Statement of Claim relates to a “pay as you go” cell phone service. Ms. Dmyterko complains about voice messaging service and the phone itself: ... I was having problems with the service. There was partial messages in the voicemail, messages were cut off, I could barely hear the messages or, I didn’t get any of my messages that people left.

I checked in with others. I thought I had regular voice mail. But they limited it to only three messages, which was gross, because if you had two you needed to hold for a couple of days of so you had one space left. ... Even some calls I was expecting didn’t arrive. My phone wasn’t ringing - the calls seemed to go to voice mail. Or was that selective ringing calls on my phone. [ 11 ] The Statement of Claim indicates Ms. Dmyterko complained about her cell phone and messaging service, but was dissatisfied with the outcome.

She therefore refused to pay her bill, and attached to the Statement of Claim a collections slip for a total of $133 with a handwritten annotation: “No Service - why is it on there. They don’t listen.” The Statement of Claim continues that this debt is “sitting on my credit rating”, and that has had negative effects on her credit rating: ... has affected my ability to use my credit rating and receive the use of various businesses that I require so I am suing Koodo. Because that has been a huge inconvenience . ... This has cost me a lot of money, not able to use my credit. ...

Koodo mobile’s charge on my credit rating caused me not to be able to get to somethings that were very important to make money over the last five years. [Emphasis in original.] [ 12 ] On this basis Ms. Dmyterko claims remedies including: 1. removal of the debt from Ms.

Dmyterko’s credit rating, 2. $3 million in US dollars “... to get my credit rating up to where it was before ...”, 3. $30 million in US dollars for “huge” “inconvenience”, 4. $25 billion in US dollars for “lost opportunity cost” due to missed telephone calls, 5. $5.9 million in US dollars for “only three space voice mail was costly to getting work done” [sic, emphasis in original], 6. $20 billion in US dollars for not being able to obtain a credit card, 7. over $30 million in US dollars “for not having my good credit available”, 8. over $18 million in US dollars for the “serious credit issue” that resulted from Ms.

Dmyterko’s Equifax report, and 9. an unspecified amount for “Bait and Switch” cell phone service. [ 13 ] The Statement of Claim concludes “We can talk about these charges and negotiate a settlement.” [ 14 ] After review of Ms. Dmyterko’s filings, I conclude that these are AVAPs and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II. CPN7 [ 15 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 16 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strikes out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 17 ] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 , at paras 22, 24 . Only restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah #2 at paras 24-48. There are exceptions to that rule. For example, the Court may

examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and recordsthat are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III. Analysis [18] Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim both exhibit the same two apparent issues, so I will address them together. A. Inadequate Pleadings [19] An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the caseit must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87.

Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “baldallegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA227 at paras 16-20. Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to theresponding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19. [20] Ms.

Dmyterko cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill inthe blanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20. A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, butgoes to the core of the claim: GH v Alcock at para 58, citing AL v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006), (ON CA), 274 DLR (4th) 431, 218 OAC 150 (Ont CA).

Inadequate pleadings abuse the court’s process because arespondent cannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposedargument, or make findings on the relevant facts: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. [21] Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim do make certain allegations that could be a basis for a valid claim. She says the TCIworkers stole things from her. She says Koodo Mobile did not provide the services she had contracted for, and/or did so in an inadequateway.

However, that is the point where the “who, when, where, how, and what” ends. The remainder of her claims are bald allegations.What was the intellectual property? What were Ms. Dmyterko’s lost business opportunities? What is Ms. Dmyterko’s career, and howhas it been negatively affected? How are George Clooney and Brad Pitt involved with Judy Sharratt? What is the relevance of themissing piece of metal from the clothes dryer? What are the “ideas” stolen and used by TCI that are worth, at a minimum, $50 billion?What happened to Ms.

Dmyterko’s social insurance card, passport, and birth certificate, and why did she need to expend $2 million torecover or replace those items? [22] I therefore request that Ms. Dmyterko explain how these Statement of Claim pleadings establish a basis for the Court andDefendants to make a meaningful response. C. Excessive or Impossible Remedies [23] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Ms. Dmyterko’s lawsuits seek billions of dollars in damages.

The basis for these amounts is not identified in the Statement of Claim.Some of the amounts claimed are incompatible with the alleged wrongdoing. For example, Ms. Dmyterko claims $20 billion in USdollars because she could not obtain a credit card. I believe I may take judicial notice that personal credit cards do not permit borrowingof billions of dollars. [24] Ms. Dmyterko seeks 20% interest per day for her stolen “ideas”. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 prohibits and makes it anoffence to charge a rate of over 60% per annum. Ms.

Dmyterko’s 2001 12768 Statement of Claim damages appear to exceed thatmaximum rate. [25] At least some of the penalties sought appear to be a general “pain and suffering” damages claim, for example $52 billion “forstress”, and $50 billion for “full recovery of my health”. Those amounts greatly exceed the maximum amount of general damages thatmay be claimed for pain and suffering that was set in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229,83 DLR (3d) 452 at $100,000.

After inflation, the Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd general damages cap is now about $365,000.That amount was for a young adult whose injuries led to near total disability. Ms. Dmyterko’s claims vastly exceed that cap, and Ms.Dmyterko does not allege injury that would warrant the maximum $365,000 amount. [26] Ms. Dmyterko is asked to indicate how her claims in the two lawsuits are not excessive or impossible remedies. IV. CPN7 Analysis [27] Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim appear to be suitable candidates for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks aresponse from Ms. Dmyterko on these questions: 1.

How do the Statements of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendants? 2. How are the remedies sought in the Statements of Claim not excessive and/or impossible? [28] Ms. Dmyterko’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12768 and 2101 01670 Actions are stayed. CPN7 nowadvances to its second step. 1. Ms. Dmyterko has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10

pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 2. If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whether the Statements of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Dmyterko provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms. Dmyterko’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Docket 2001 12768 and 2101 01670 Statements of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 29 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action. Ms. Dmyterko’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 5 th day of March, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Brian D. Filips Field LLP for the Defendants Telus Communications Inc. and Koodo Mobile