Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc, 2021 ABQB 219

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc, 2021 ABQB 219 Date: 20210326 Dockets: 2001 10292, 2001 10725, 2001 12765, 2001 12769, 2001 16014, 2001 16015, 2101 00913, 2101 01669 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket 2001 10292 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Nissan Canada Inc Defendant And between: Docket 2001 10725 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Judy Sharratt and Barry Herchuk Defendants And between: Docket 2001 12765 Janice Dmyterko

Plaintiff - and - EIA (Edmonton International Airport) Defendant And between: Docket 2001 12769 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Cindy Crawford, Rande Gerber, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, and Angelina Jolie Defendants And between: Docket 2001 16014 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Shaw and Shaw Communications Defendants And between: Docket 2001 16015 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Apple Computers and all their named companies Apple Inc.

Defendants And between: Docket 2101 00913 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) Defendant And between: Docket 2101 00913 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Alberta Dental Association and College Defendant And between: Docket 2101 01669 Janice Dmyterko Plaintiff - and - Rogers Communications

Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On March 14, 2021, I was referred nine Statements of Claim filed in eight proceedings by Janice Dmyterko [Ms. Dmyterko] as candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 5. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 2 ] Ms.

Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim are handwritten documents that are sometimes difficult to understand. Each was filed pursuant to a fee waiver as authorized by the March 27, 2020 Ministerial Order 22/2020, so Ms. Dmyterko has incurred no costs to initiate her lawsuits. What follows are summaries of the nine Statements of Claim: A. Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10292 [ 3 ] The 2001 10292 Statement of Claim was filed on September 1, 2020, and names Nissan Canada Inc [Nissan] as the Defendant. Paragraphs 1-3 of the Statement of Claim identify the alleged illegality: 1.

I am submitting this claim due to intellectual property infringement as per the triangle on the side panel of the vehicle (exterior). The vehicles the triangle is on include the Nissan Kickso Nissan Murano (SL) (SU). 2. My knowing and understanding is that Nissan has owed me money for a long time now. 3. If Nissan has used any multicolored lights for their advertising they owe me for that too. Because that is theft.

I am asking for 1 million dollars per month of use of advertising with the multicolored lights. [ 4 ] The 2001 10292 Statement of Claim in addition seeks: 1. $5 billion for the “triangle” intellectual property infringement, though the statement of claim continues: “We can negotiate this and do ask me questions if you require to.” (sic). 2. an alleged $10 billion debt that has been owed “for a long time now”, as well as interest. 3. “Misc costs and my time: $145,000”. B. Dmyterko v Judy Sharratt and Barry Herchuk - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10725 [ 5 ] Ms.

Dmyterko’s 2001 10725 Statement of Claim was filed on September 14, 2020, and names Ms. Dmyterko’s former landlord, Judy Sharratt [Ms. Sharratt] and Barry Herchuk [Mr. Herchuk] as the Defendants. Ms. Dmyterko identifies Ms. Sharratt as the “... owner of the Fort Saskatchewan Canadian Sharratt Mint where they make money ...”, but, it is alleged, the Mint is also engaged in counterfeiting. [ 6 ] The Statement of Claim is identified as “a former RTDRS [Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service] claim”.

The Statement of Claim describes many alleged deficiencies with a rental premise, and alleges poor maintenance led to issues including mold. The Statement of Claim also includes pages that appear to have originated in other documents, though the source documents are unidentified.

Some allegations appear to duplicate those in Dmyterko v Telus , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12768 ( Dmyterko v Telus , 2021 ABQB 175 at paras 3-5 , action struck out 2021 ABQB 220 ) and also allege that “a lot” of “intellectual property” was stolen during break-ins. [ 7 ] The Statement of Claim also describes noisy neighbors, and blood being located outside the rental duplex. Ms.

Dmyterko threw out many household, health, and personal products due to her concerns about tampering and contamination. “There must have been multiple groups of people who went into my place of which may not have been hired by the same person.” (sic). The 2001 10725 Statement of Claim also appears to indicate someone put an intercept, or wiretap, on Ms. Dmyterko’s phone, which was “[n]on of their

business.” (sic). Subsequently, Ms. Dmyterko had property in storage with Sentinel Storage, and there was a break in there, too. She alleges Mr. Herchuk was “a part of their group” and conducted break ins. [ 8 ] The Statement of Claim states: “This is a Human Rights issue.” and attaches the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as many pages that appear to itemize personal property, and the value of that property. [ 9 ] Remedies sought include: 1. Ms.

Sharratt is criminally charged with “Break and Enter”, “theft over $50,000”, “theft over a multi-million dollars”, and “verbal assault and harassment”; 2. $3 billion for “going through my stuff”; 3. $5 billion for harassment; 4. $15 million for health issues and stress; 5. $2 million in moving costs; 6. $50,000 for “recovery of what I threw out”; 7. $5,000 for alcohol and food that was thrown out due to tampering; 8. “I want everything they own ... all the money they used due to the revenue they generated from all the ideas they stole from me ...” (emphasis in original); 9. billions of dollars for each of the “hundreds (probably thousands) of Intellectual Property” that were stolen, or $10-$15 billion US for each stolen and marketed idea; 10. steps to stop the Defendants from “... putting my ideas/intellectual property out onto the market.”; 11. $5-10 million for emotional upset and counselling; 12. $50 billion for theft, harassment, multiple break ins and hardship; 13. an unspecified amount per day because Ms.

Drymtenko could not “work on her own ideas”; 14. “If these two people Judy Sharratt and Barry Herchuk owe me money in previous life times then they owe me for that plus interest of $15% (normally daily)” (emphasis in original); and 15. $25 million as a “monument recovery fee”. C. Dmyterko v EIA (Edmonton International Airport) - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10725 [ 10 ] Ms. Dmyterko’s third Statement of Claim names the Edmonton International Airport [EIA] as the sole Defendant.

This Statement of Claim, filed on October 21, 2020, alleges “... multicolored lights used by EIA at Central Security ...” are intellectual property infringement. Ms.

Dmyterko states she telephoned EIA about compensation for the multicolored light intellectual property infringement, but received no response. [ 11 ] Remedies sought include: 1. “I am asking for everything that is mine and which belongs to me.”; 2. $300,000 in compensation for theft; 3. $178,000 in monthly compensation for the EIA multicolored lights, with 13% interest per day; 4. a court-imposed contract for future use of the multicolored lights by EIA; and 5. “Processing fees and charges include legal fees $150,000”. D. Dmyterko v Clooney - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12769 [ 12 ] Ms.

Dmyterko’s fourth Statement of Claim was also filed on October 21, 2021, and names as Defendants seven high profile celebrities: George Clooney, Julie Roberts, Cindy Crawford, Rande Gerber, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, and Angelina Jolie. The allegations made focus primarily on George Clooney, and secondarily on Brad Pitt, who “hung out a lot”. The other celebrities are allegedly implicated because they are all “keep a close knit group”, and so “... Surely they must know some things.” [ 13 ] Once more, this Statement of Claim indicates intellectual property was stolen from Ms.

Dmyterko, then appeared “... out in Hollywood and out in the marketplace ...”, and “... guys and some women ... made a lot of money.” The intellectual property theft occurred after Ms. Dmyterko:

... reached out to an actor named George Clooney via letter. His agent responded that he wasn’t interested. I didn’t hear anything more from them. [ 14 ] The Statement of Claim indicates that, subsequently, Ms. Dmyterko was using her iMac computer, and “... the cursor was changing for some reason when I wasn’t touching it. ...”. Later, Ms. Dmyterko created music using “garage band” on her Apple notebook, but then that music disappeared. Ms. Dmyterko attributes these events to George Clooney and Brad Pitt: ... Later I could tell George Clooney and Brad Pitt were in my computer, as I was playing CD’s.

I knew they were thinking of me. [ 15 ] Ms. Dmyterko also appears to make allegations that the Defendants (or their agents) broke into the apartment where she was saying: ... Someone broke in when I was away for the weekend. They put seven forks in my clean dishes drying tray. I had just cooked a turkey a few days before. I always lock the door when I leave. We require new lock mechanisms because these guys were in there (or their people) with no forced entry. I threw out the turkey and a lot of food. [ 16 ] Ms.

Dmyterko states “[t]hese people even went so far as to mess with and muck up the TV shows I was watching”, for example “Masterchef Canada”, and “The Amazing Race”. “Also food products I was buying became gross after.” [ 17 ] Some of the statements in this pleading are difficult to understand. For example: Paragraph 7: By 2014-2015 BC put an image of himself of the overweight George on my ipod. I still have it somewhere, yet he never reached out to me directly.

Unnumbered paragraph, page 3: Was George Clooney + Brad Pitt part owners of Apple computer before or did they just get to them after my incidents with Apple and calling Apple Computer about the problems I’ve had with the computers? Because they went through Google after and Shaw then Telus (break in at 10123 - 82 Street residence.) Then Rogers Mobile, Koodo and Telus Mobility. That’s how gross this is. [ 18 ] The Statement of Claim identifies many specific items intellectual property that allegedly were stolen.

These are some examples: • “The George clothing line which was based on what I wanted to put out for some clothes (2011)” • “Catman for Marvel” • “The word “Fury” for movie. I know they read my script the Ending. Brad Pitt had a movie with that word. ... that one word I had in my script. No one really used it previously until I used it for as not of a scene.

Then I saw it was used.” • “Character like Venom character when I was in Calgary I received the idea (2006) approx.” • “The iridescent was from my script (2012-2015) - they put a dress out that had this at was start.” • “Cars movie took some of my ideas and gloated about it.” • “Brad Pitt movie “Astra AD” “AD Astra” I worked for Astra Energy Canada that movie came out sometime after.” • “Aquaman - some info pertaining to my script and self: -the colored part of the eyes - glows - colors. -that blond gal’s fish outfit colors -AquaMan’s outfit colors” • “Multicolored items ...

All the multicolor stuff/items lights.” • “NASA info that I know of.” [Sic.] [ 19 ] The remedies sought are in some instances difficult to understand, but, at a minimum, include: 1. all “gross revenue from all the movies, music, and material items in this group”, plus 25% interest per day since October 2016, and a further $50 billion “per item of my ideas ... put out to market”; 2. $3,015,500 for electronics, a new passport and birth certificate, and “credit rating recovery”, 3. $60 million “for hardship”; 4. $3 million for “Cost of Misc since Oct 2015”; 5. “at least” $35 billion for “loss of earnings”;

6. $5 trillion for “loss opportunity costs”; 7. $5 million for “luggage, storage, housing”; 8. further damages “I will provide info later. They know it.” “They have owed me money since multiple lifetimes ago.”; 9. $50 million for “abuse and harassment”; and 10 $15 million for a “Monument fund to correct damages (defacing, damages, theft + etc). [ 20 ] The Statement of Claim also attaches an annotated copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. E. Dmyterko v Shaw and Shaw Communications - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 16014 [ 21 ] Ms.

Dmyterko’s next lawsuit was filed on December 22, 2020, and names Shaw and Shaw Communications as the Defendants. The Statement of Claim indicates Ms. Dmyterko is a customer of the Defendants, and the Defendants provided her email services. The focus of her claim is an event that occurred when Ms. Dmyterko accessed her Shaw email at a library computer: I was at the library that day when I was checking my Shaw email for a response for a job. Suddenly a strange whirlwind type image on that computer that engulfed my email down. I’ve never seen anything like it before. I was shocked at what had just happened there?

I quickly called SHAW from the library that late afternoon evening. The SHAW guy couldn’t explain anything. -I wanted to note that I quickly shut down the computer after that whirlwind showed up. -Since that time I seemed to feel that those computers were compromised when I went in there to use the computer. Which affected my career. [ 22 ] The 2001 16014 Statement of Claim continues to indicate that Ms. Dmyterko had further communications with the Defendants’ employees. She realized those employees were trying to tip her off that “something/someone” was up. The library event and the tips made Ms.

Dmyterko uncomfortable, her email was compromised, so she was not able to get work done, start a business, or apply for jobs. The Statement of Claim indicates Ms. Dmyterko lost business opportunities due to the email issue. [ 23 ] The responsible party is not identified. “I’m not sure if these SHAW people stole any of my intellectual property, or not at my place.” “Someone is liable. ...

Did they get paid off to do something to me?” [ 24 ] This Statement of Claim does not indicate the quantum of damages and remedies sought, but instead states “** The amounts are to be determined after further research.” Headings for damages include: 1. claims for inconvenience; 2. “costs recovery for those helping me”; 3. money that the Defendants “[made] off me via starting new companies, specifically “SHAW College - AB, BC possibly others”, “SHAW Jr. - NAIT - Edm”, “Shaw Conference Centre - Edm”, “SHAW was also on that video game - xbox?

Maybe Grand Theft something?”; 4. “recovery cost of credit rating”; 5. theft of intellectual property; and 6. hardship. F. Dmyterko v Apple Computers and all their named companies Apple Inc. - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 16015 [ 25 ] The sixth Statement of Claim was also filed on December 22, 2020, and names “Apple Computers and all their named companies Apple Inc.” as the Defendants.

The body of the Statement of Claim identifies a number of “Other Co’s of Apple”, such as companies that include the word “Mac” (e.g. “Mac Dental” in Red Deer), and several clothing stores. [ 26 ] The body of this Statement of Claim is 30 handwritten pages. The document’s narrative overlaps with some of the previous actions. Ms. Dmyterko indicates she is a long-time Apple computer user, and used Apple computers with her career.

She explains she had difficulty finding employment, so she wrote “creative stories”, and was marketing those, but without success. [ 27 ] The Statement of Claim reports “Something strange was going on. Someone put wording in with mine on my documents”. Ms. Dmyterko also indicates there were issues with files. “People were getting in my Apple computer. There were indicators my documents were edited some of my information was missing.” She concluded this was theft of ideas, and illegal: “Gross. No, they can’t have any of my intellectual property - it’s protected.” [ 28 ] Ms.

Dmyterko attributes these events to George Clooney: “I believe George Clooney is linked to this Apple Computer somehow ...”. The Statement of Claim indicates Ms. Dmyterko contacted “Apple Executives” about her issues, but “they hung up on me.” Then “strange things” were happening with Ms. Dmyterko’s cell phones and voice mails, George Clooney “was getting in my

email” from Nova Scotia. Phone calls were diverted. Thefts of “intellectual property” occurred. Other electronic devices failed, behaved irregularly, or were infected by viruses. Documents were improperly formatted. Emails were hacked and phone calls intercepted. These developments hampered Ms. Dmyterko’s attempts to find employment and develop her businesses. This was “deliberate sabotage”. [ 29 ] The Statement of Claim continues to state George Clooney is a “part owner of Apple” because when Ms.

Dmyterko was working as a cleaner at an Apple Store in Richmond Mall: “I was sure George and Brad Pitt were going to show up. I sensed them.” An image of George Clooney appeared on Ms. Dmyterko’s iPad, “I was creeped out and upset.” George Clooney “... placed a couple cars at front, across the street. ...” which Ms. Dmyterko believes had cameras to monitor Ms. Dmyterko. Ms. Dmyterko also reports encounters with unidentified persons she perceived as threatening. [ 30 ] The Statement of Claim indicates that intellectual property was stolen from Ms. Dmyterko’s computers, and then ended up in various public forms.

The identified thefts in many cases duplicate those reported in the Docket 2001 12769 action, though some are different, for example Docket 2001 16015 Statement of Claim alleges the “Hunger Games” motion picture was one of Ms. Dmyterko’s scripts, and that music performed by Billie Eillish, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, “Bieber”, “Andria Grande” and others was stolen from Ms. Dmyterko’s computers. [ 31 ] Similar to the Docket 2001 16014 Statement of Claim, this filing also does not usually indicate the quantum of damages sought, though Ms. Dmyterko indicates the total are trillions of dollars.

Identified headings of damages include: 1. computer related expenses; 2. $250,000 for the “legal claim”: paper, copying, printing, and “food + coffee” expenses; 3. “cost recovery” for career, jobs, and health; 4. not having appropriate housing; 5. intellectual property theft, “Billions USD at least EACH For each instance where my intellectual property was used.” (emphasis added), and “gross revenue” resulting from those thefts; 6. $5 million US dollars for “additional fees and expenses”; 7. criminal charges for Apple Computer and its staff, including imprisonment; 8. that Marvel cease using “my Catman character”, and that Marvel should be charged with fraud for alleging the Catman character had existed prior to its invention by Ms.

Dmyterko; and 9. lost opportunity costs. G. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 00913 Docket Actions [ 32 ] The next action initiated by Ms. Dmyterko is unusual because it appears Ms. Dmyterko filed two separate and different Statements of Claim in the same docket. Each relates to entirely different Defendants. The first Statement of Claim names the “RBC (Royal Bank of Canada” [RBC] as the Defendant. The second Statement of Claim identifies “Alberta Dental Association and College” [ADAC] as the Defendant.

The second Docket 2101 00913 Statement of Claim has a handwritten annotation by the Clerk of the Court that this filing was “taken on insistence from filer”. I will treat each of the Statements of Claim separately. 1. Dmyterko v RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) [ 33 ] The first Docket 2101 00913 Statement of Claim chiefly relates to complaints concerning services with RBC and debts. Ms. Dmyterko states she experienced financial stress due to a lack of employment, problems in job hunting, issues with her landlord (Ms.

Sharratt), break ins, computer problems, intellectual property theft, and because social support provided by Alberta and British Columbia was inadequate. The Statement of Claim repeats allegations in other of Ms. Dmyterko’s filings, for example that “George Clooney has been harassing me for thousands of years now.” [ 34 ] The Statement of Claim then states Ms. Dmyterko moved to Penticton where she saw murals on business walls: ... linking RBC to the big old ferris wheel of London England ...

I had previously realized that in 2016-2017 there was a ferris wheel on the new $10 bills that were showing up as our new Cdn currency which links some of the break ins at my old residence due to the SHARRATT Mint and the British Monarch. ... That was reported to the Edmonton Police Service and Crimestoppers in B.C. [ 35 ] What follows is a difficult to understand narrative about how Ms. Dmyterko attended an RBC branch where there was an emergency vehicle outside. Ms. Dmyterko describes individuals in that branch and outside in a motor vehicle, and says this related to money laundering.

Again, this information was allegedly submitted to the police. [ 36 ] The Statement of Claim continues to describe irregularities and “creepy stuff going on” with her RBC bank account. Issues with Ms. Dmyterko’s credit rating meant she could not get a credit card, which was an inconvenience and impeded Ms. Dmyterko’s business plans. [ 37 ] The RBC 2101 00913 Statement of Claim also alleges that Ms. Dmyterko’s “... life has been hacked ...” by the British Monarchy, and that the British Monarchy was behind funds disappearing from Ms. Dmyterko’s RBC bank account. Money that should

have been deposited did not appear. The ferris wheel imagery is proof of the British Monarchy’s involvement. The British Monarchy also conspired with Kate Spade to create “a hack off what I kept.” [ 38 ] Remedies sought in the RBC 2101 00913 Statement of Claim include: 1. $50,000 to “correct” Ms. Dmyterko’s credit rating; 2. “beyond billions or more” is compensation due to the inconvenience that “people don’t/may not want to hang out with me.”; 3. Ms.

Dmyterko’s entrepreneurial activities have “been put on hold”, which cost her “beyond trillions” of US dollars; 4. approximately $3 million US in compensation “... for those who are helping me at this point ...”; 5. $25 million US for intellectual property stolen by RBC employees; 6. unspecified damages for wasted time, health and stress, career, intellectual property theft, missing bank deposits, having a bad credit rating, not having a credit card, and lawyer fees; 7. $5 million US for “additional time and expenses”; 8. “The British Monarch, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Cindy Crawford, and Rande Gerber also Barry Herchuk and Judy Sharratt all out to be charged with theft, clearly multiple counts.

In addition to any RBC Staff where appropriate.”; and 9. replacement for a watch that was switched for a fake; and 10. “I want everything they have that is mine.” 2. Dmyterko v Alberta Dental Association and College [ 39 ] The second Docket 2101 00913 Statement of Claim centers on an orthodontist Cory Liss [Dr. Liss] who performed surgery on Ms. Dmyterko. The Statement of Claim indicates that surgery has “... thrown off my jaw and teeth and I have skull concerns ...”, caused pain, loss of sleep, issues eating, and other distress. When Ms. Dmyterko: ... wore a covid mask ... my body went in distress.

I pulled it off and I felt like I was going to puke. The face pressure was gross - I went to the hospital and appears to have a lite mild stroke ... [Sic.] An oral retainer provided by Dr. Liss was defective. All this impeded Ms. Dmyterko’s ability to work: “I used to work at $110% now I work at about 10%.” [ 40 ] This Statement of Claim reports Ms. Dmyterko sought assistance from the Defendant ADAC, but “they never gave me the time of day”. Subsequent to that Ms. Dmyterko sued Dr. Liss for $2 million, but “... the judge shut the whole claim down. ...”. Ms.

Dmyterko then approached ADAC “... to see if they can force Cory Liss to give me money ...”. That resulted in a complaint response letter from ADAC, dated December 11, 2020, that is attached to the Statement of Claim. The ADAC reply letter dismissed Ms. Dmyterko’s complaint. The ADAC Statement of Claim rejects this result: Twice now I’ve been talking with the AB Dental Association and twice they haven’t helped me. Who are they? What is the point of them being there!? [ 41 ] The ADAC Statement of claim seeks: 1. $10,000 and interest as a refund of money paid to Dr.

Liss; 2. travel expenses; 3. $15 million US for “time and expenses” in the current and previous legal claims; 4. $15 million US for “pain and inconvenience”; 5. future medical care costs; 6. $5 million because the ADAC has not set adequate standards of dental practices; 7. an unspecified amount for not taking Ms. Dmyterko’s complaint seriously; 8. that ADAC “... force Cory Liss to compensate me as soon as possible due to Medical Malpractice which is obvious ...”; 9. “charging Cory with medical malpractices”; and 10. $2 million for psychological problems resulting from “the way my teeth look now”. H.

Dmyterko v Rogers Communications - Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 01669

[ 42 ] The ninth and final Statement of Claim referred to me names Rogers Communications [Rogers] as the Defendant. The Statement of Claim was filed on February 4, 2021, and complains about telephone and voicemail services provided by that company. Ms. Dmyterko indicates voicemail messages were incomplete, hard to hear, and that the maximum number of voicemail messages was inadequate. Sometimes Ms. Dmyterko’s phone would not ring. Ms. Dmyterko complained to customer service and was unsatisfied with the response.

She “dropped the plan”, and “[t]hey owe me money.” [ 43 ] A second complaint is that Rogers was “... on my credit rating when it’s a “pay as you go” program I purchased, and started.” The Statement of Claim attaches a billing statement that indicates that Ms. Dmyterko used Rogers’ services in April and May 2018, the account was “Closed at consumer’s request, Account paid”, and that there is nothing owing. [ 44 ] The Statement of Claim continues to indicate that Ms. Dmyterko, as “a business person”, requires good credit.

Rogers is responsible for her not having a credit card. [ 45 ] Remedies sought include: 1. $20 billion US “... for messing with my credit rating and wasting my time.” 2. $5 million US for “lack of privacy”; 3. $500,000 for “messing with my phone and voice mail”, another $20 million US for “someone messing with my phone”, and a further $20 million US for “not being able to use my phone properly”; 4. $25 billion US for lost opportunity costs, though “...

I ought to be charging this to trillions of dollars.”; 5. $30 million US for the inconvenience of dealing “... with this ridiculousness on my Equifax file”; 6. $30 million for being unable to access the 2020 Christmas holidays; 7. $3 million for restoring Ms. Dmyterko’s credit rating; and 8. “that three space voicemail was a joke to try and get any work done 5.9 million USD ” (emphasis in original). [ 46 ] The Statement of Claim concludes: “We can talk about these charges and negotiate settlement. I. Conclusion [ 47 ] 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 [ 48 ] 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 ]. [ 49 ] 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 with 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. [ 50 ] 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 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 [ 51 ] All of Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim both exhibit three common issues, so I will address them together. A.

Inadequate Pleadings [ 52 ] 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. [53] 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]. [54] Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim do make certain basic allegations that could be a basis for a valid claim. For example, ifMs. Dmyterko had intellectual property that was stolen and then employed commercially, that could be a basis for a lawsuit and anaward of damages. Similarly, when Ms.

Dmyterko complains about bank irregularities and disappearing funds, or inadequatetelecommunications services, then those could be a basis for an action in contract. [55] However, that is the point where the “who, when, where, how, and what” ends. For example, in relation to the manyintellectual property infringement claims, the basis for Ms. Dmyterko’s allegations is unclear. Did Ms. Dmyterko copyright or trademarkthe “triangle” intellectual property that Ms. Dmyterko alleges Nissan infringed upon? Other times the description of the allegedintellectual property infringement is unclear.

What were the EIA multicolor lights? Are they something Ms. Dmyterko patented? Manyof Ms. Dymterko’s claims are bald allegations. A common thread through many of the Statements of Claim is that the Defendantsimpeded Ms. Dmyterko’s business plans. What were those business plans? How would these lost opportunities result in billions, ortrillions, of dollars in income? [56] In the Shaw Statement of Claim, Ms. Dmyterko identifies “... a strange whirlwind type image on that computer that engulfedmy email ...”. What does that mean? What were the songs that were pirated by the various musical artists?

How has George Clooneybeen persecuting Ms. Dmyterko for thousands of years? What is a “monument recovery fee”? [57] 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. B. Extraordinary Claims [58] In a Rule 3.68 procedure, pled facts are presumed to be true: R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para 17.However, this presumption is not unlimited.

As Gill J observed in Arabi v Alberta, 2014 ABQB 295 at paras 74-78, an action cannot relyon allegations that are absurd, highly implausible, or hyperbole, as these appear to be. This is particularly true when no detail is offeredon the nature of an underlying misconduct and its operation. Similarly, Manderscheid J in VWW v Wasylyshen, 2013 ABQB 327 at para52, leave refused 2014 ABCA 121, observed “[a]n extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” [59] Many of Ms. Dmyterko’s claims are extraordinary.

She appears to claim that a group of Hollywood celebrities were intrudinginto her rental duplex suite, and the evidence of that is the appearance of seven clean forks. Ms. Dmyterko appears to claim her computeris remotely accessed or controlled. She claims the British Monarchy controls RBC via ferris wheel imagery. She says she can enforcedebts from past lives. [60] Her intellectual property claims are extraordinarily. She says that Marvel has fabricated a pre-Dmyterko publication recordfor the “Catman” character. How would that be accomplished?

Similarly, she says the movie title “Fury”, which I understand is thenickname of a Sherman tank crewed by Brad Pitt in a movie with the same name, is a word that has never been previously used inrelation to a work of intellectual property. “Fury” is unique, and, instead, was allegedly copied from an unidentified “intellectualproperty” stolen from Ms. Dmyterko. [61] Ms. Dmyterko is asked to indicate how her Statements of Claim allege or establish facts that provide the “extraordinary proof”for her “extraordinary claims”. C.

Excessive or Impossible Remedies [62] 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 millions, sometimes billions, and even trillions, of dollars in damages. Many of Ms. Dmyterko’sclaims in one sense or another relate to commercial activity, such as loss opportunities, or the proceeds that resulted from allegedcommercial exploitation of stolen intellectual property.

I believe I may take judicial notice that it is extremely unlikely that Ms.Dmyterko truly lost business opportunities worth $5 trillion, given the GDP of Canada is only $1.7 trillion. Ms. Dmyterko appears to beseeking billions in damages for allegedly stolen intellectual property. How is that justified? [63] Some of the amounts claimed are incompatible with the alleged wrongdoing. Millions in damages for “Misc costs”, “Cost ofMisc”, “Additional time and expenses” are extremely large sums that have no documented basis at all. Assuming Ms.

Dmyterko’scomplaints about the Rogers telephone services are valid, how does one month of inferior phone and messaging warrant $20,500,000 incompensation and/or damages? How is RBC liable for “billions” because people do not want to hang out with Ms. Dmyterko? [64] Certain Statements of Claim appears to indicate the Court should initiate some kind of criminal or disciplinary proceeding, butprovides no basis for why the Court would have that kind of authority. How does this Court have the authority to impose a contractbetween EIA and Ms. Dmyerko concerning the “multicolored lights”?

How can the Court require ADAC to “force” Dr. Liss to makepayments to Ms. Dmyterko? [65] Sometimes Ms. Dmyterko seeks specific interest rates on a daily basis. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 prohibits andmakes it an offence to charge a rate of over 60% per annum. The interest rates demanded by Ms. Dmyterko appear to exceed that

maximum rate. [66] At least some of the penalties sought appear to be a general “pain and suffering” damages claim. Those amounts greatlyexceed the maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed for pain and suffering that was set in Andrews v Grand & ToyAlberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 at $100,000. After inflation, the Andrews v Grand & ToyAlberta 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 $365,000amount. [67] Ms. Dmyterko is asked to indicate how the remedies sought in the nine Statements of Claim are not excessive or impossible. IV. CPN7 Analysis [68] Ms. Dmyterko’s Statements of Claim appear to be suitable candidates for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks aresponse from Ms. Dmyterko to these questions: 1. How do the Statements of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendants? 2. How do the Statements of Claim provide extraordinary proof for Ms. Dmyterko’s extraordinary claims? 3.

How are the remedies sought in the Statements of Claim not excessive and/or impossible? [69] Ms. Dmyterko’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 10292, 2001 10725, 2001 12765, 2001 12769, 2001 16014,2001 16015, 2101 00913, and 2101 01669 Actions are stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. CPN7 provides of a maximumWritten Submission response of ten pages but, in light of this Decision relating to multiple lawsuits, I will expand that limit to 30 pages. 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 30pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief JusticeRooke”. 2. If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe 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 Replyof up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of AssociateChief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms. Dmyterko’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its finaldecision on whether the nine Statements of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [70] 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 26th day of March, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None