Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 220

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 220 Date: 20210322 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On February 17, 2021, Counsel for Telus Communications Inc. [TCI] 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. After review of Ms.

Dmyterko’s filings, I concluded in a decision reported as Dmyterko v Telus , 2021 ABQB 175 [ Dmyterko #1 ] that the two Statements of Claim are AVAPs and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. [ 2 ] Ms. Dmyterko was asked to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission that responded to two 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? [ Dmyterko #1 at para 27 .] [ 3 ] The deadline for Ms. Dmyterko’s Written Submission has passed.

Nothing has been received. I, therefore, conclude that Ms. Dmyterko has not rebutted the Dmyterko #1 prima facie conclusion that the Docket 2001 12768 and 2101 01670 Statements of Claim are hopeless and abusive proceedings. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2001 12768 and 2101 01670 Statements of Claim struck out pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68. [ 4 ] 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. Ms. Dmyterko sought billions in damages in both lawsuits. Given that quantum, and Alberta Rules of Court

Schedule C, I order Ms. Dmyterko pay each Defendant $500 in costs, forthwith. [ 5 ] Counsel for TCI shall prepare and serve the court Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Dmyterko’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 22 nd 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