Claybrook v Alberta (Health Services), 2021 ABQB 182

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Claybrook v Alberta (Health Services), 2021 ABQB 182 Date: 20210309 Dockets: 2103 02804, 2103 02805, 2103 02806 Registry: Edmonton Between: Action 2103 02804 Cody Wyvil Claybrook Plaintiff - and - Alberta Health Services Defendant And between: Action 2103 02805 Cody Wyvil Claybrook Plaintiff - and - The Homeless Supports Initiative Defendant And between: Action 2103 02806 Cody Wyvil Claybrook

Plaintiff - and - The Homeless Supports Initiative Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On March 1, 2021, Cody Wyvil Claybrook (Mr. Claybrook) filed three handwritten Statements of Claim, naming Alberta Health Services as the Defendant in one action, and the Homeless Supports Initiative as the Defendant in the other two matters. Mr. Claybrook did not pay filing fees for these three lawsuits since Mr.

Claybrook had a fee waiver. [ 2 ] The three Statements of Claim are difficult to read and understand. As best I can determine, the bodies of the three Statements of Claims are as follows: Claybrook v Alberta Health Services , docket 2103 02804: Faulty diagnosis leading to illegal Police forced injections of stuff I didnt have the conditions for and that I was allergic to for 3 years.

I sat for some time with a doctor and said not 1 word and he exclaimed skizopheria had he sat with syphilis for 4 years and a brain cell eating blood virus - criminal negligence stating I was good everytime one had he spreading the disease to other, that are legally closed to the for the STD because they were not informed of an STD until they contracted it and thats illegal uneducated inexperienced faulty diagnosis. Criminal negligence. fraud. Impersonation ect. So Apart from the $3000 the women get for sleeping with the doctor, they dont do anything else for anyone anywhere. ect.

So doctor are paid for [indecipherable] because they got with the women under false Pretenses and that [indecipherable] illegal I want for compensation herbal, remedy sought but not got. they injected me. She examined Sue and then medicine go without. No medical attendant allergic heavy severe side effect still getting Police force injected almost murdering me and not giving a fuck just kept injecting me.

To care to find out later that they were afraid I could take over the world Claybrook v Homeless Supports Initiative , docket 2013 02805: My lifes worth is what I’m seeking for them putting me into bug infested buildings contracting me Lyme disease because going to are after 4 years because textbooks state there still is no cure for a bugs foreign food import store on ground level abandonment by the homeless supports initiatives classifying me permanent supportive housing and wants me in [indecipherable] buildings with no chance for visitors, severe staffed, ect.

Fingernail changing color to yellow just as textbooks grown up states one can state as of yet there is still no cure. The foreign food import stores in downtown edmonton brought in [indecipherable] + of different types of bugs.

And the fact they have made the [indecipherable] that pesticide could not eradicate them and after a short time frame were reinfested therefore not getting rid of the bugs so the [indecipherable] downtown core in edmonton is flooded with bug infestations [indecipherable] to foreign food imports! (Yet Edmontonians still don’t know how the bugs got here or how to get rid of them.) The initial [indecipherable] as to why they want find me housing.

Why they are [indecipherable] me having [indecipherable] in my life, family, [indecipherable] ect [indecipherable] all because as illegal to watch people die or not provide when you have the means or capability as a inhumane care cure have up to attempted murder criminal negligence guilty with [indecipherable] larceny / embezzling

ect. I payment of my IAS workshare should be in order not to [indecipherable] (on all [indecipherable] and be it [indecipherable] $4,000/month in CAD CAD costs [indecipherable] = CAD amount over one currency to be paid in other currency vary). I would like my. Claybrook v Homeless Supports Initiative , docket 2013 02806 Still homeless. Kind of proves that they are not doing their jobs and are [indecipherable] in the form of a paycheck.

All they have to do is contact the Government get a list of company [indecipherable] one find all the ones with [indecipherable] then check availability, arrange meeting/very [indecipherable] once agreed move them in, after setting up third party payments from [indecipherable] directly out. finger nail turning yellow from what might be lyme disease from deer legged ticks that could have been brought in by the foreign food import store downstairs and the food they eat dead mice also gnaw they [indecipherable] many other [indecipherable] then by infected or condemned [indecipherable] that is unsafe for [indecipherable] I got evicted for helping the poor I’ve to visitor history at the first one only have opportunity because I wouldn’t let people outside and I would be in an visitors regardless accuse as impolite to make them care all that way to turn them down we keep the peace been of good nature and were always right but paper got rehab and otherwise work have been commenting attempted [indecipherable] I them [indecipherable] me $80,000 lawsuit [indecipherable] problem because I can go to jail for not letting them in a whole [indecipherable] cheek could be inappropriate because they are falsifying employees ie fraudry in the form of a paycheck.

Nothing can fix the [indecipherable] because lyme disease is after [indecipherable] they [indecipherable] so proper Their job: Call Government get company directore. Seek all #s for housing. Call them. Ask for all availability + arrange belongs Venus. Set none in date. Move on each for [indecipherable] other [indecipherable] were find [indecipherable]. Get them I.D. take them for coffee, find them housing, plus transport, move them in. (Sic.) [ 3 ] Mr.

Claybrook’s Statements of Claim were referred to me by the Clerk of the Court as Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (AVAPs) 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. CPN7 is reviewable on-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice- notes. [ 4 ] I have reviewed Mr. Claybrook’s Statements of Claim and conclude these are AVAPs because these filings have elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude Mr.

Claybrook’s Statements of Claim should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . That means I have decided that Mr. Claybrook must file a Written Submission setting out why his Statements of Claim should not be struck out because they are significantly deficient. II. CPN7 [ 5 ] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 ( Unrau #1 ). [ 6 ] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out the AVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 7 ] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and must also be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 8 ] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes 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 and 24 . [ 9 ] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrow focus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 ( Ubah #2 ). 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 records that 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 [ 10 ] Mr. Claybrook’s Statements of Claim appear to be inadequate pleadings. An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the case it must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co , 2002 SCC 18 at para 87 .

Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “bald allegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock , 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58 ; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) , 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20 . Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what

gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 19. [11] Mr. Claybrook 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]. [12] Mr. Claybrook’s filings speak for themselves. I request Mr. Claybrook indicate how his Statements of Claim provide the“who, when, where, how and what” that provides a basis for this Court and the Defendants to make a meaningful response. IV. Conclusion [13] Mr.

Claybrook’s Statements of Claim appear to be suitable AVAP candidates for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks aresponse from Mr. Claybrook that indicates how the Statements of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants tomake a meaningful response. [14] The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench docket 2103 02804, 2103 02805, and 2103 02806 Actions are stayed until further notice.CPN7 now advances to its second step. This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearances or oralargument. The next steps are: 1) Mr.

Claybrook has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, asdescribed in para 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G.Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statements ofClaim should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If Mr. Claybrook provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants each have seven days to provide a WrittenReply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of AssociateChief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives Mr. Claybrook’s Written Submission and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will makeits final decision on whether the Statements of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court(see CPN7, para 3(e)). [15] The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying the three actions (see CPN7, para 7). Mr. Claybrook’s approval ofthe Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court. Mr. Claybrook may be served this Decision andthe Interim Stay Order to the email address identified on Mr. Claybrook’s docket 2103 02805 Statement of Claim:dawndepon@hotmail.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 9th day of March, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None