Savage v Sniderman, 2021 ABQB 222

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Savage v Sniderman, 2021 ABQB 222 Date: 20210323 Docket: 2103 00364 Registry: Edmonton Between: Shawn D. Savage Plaintiff - and - Howard J. Sniderman Q.C. and Witten LLP Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On February 18, 2021, counsel for the Defendants Howard J. Sniderman Q.C. (Mr. Sniderman) and Witten LLP (Witten) by letter referred a Statement of Claim filed on January 25, 2021 by Shawn D. Savage (Mr.

Savage) to the Court as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. [ 2 ] I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. In a written decision reported as Savage v Sniderman , 2021 ABQB 165 [ Savage #1 ] , I concluded Mr. Savage’s Statement of Claim exhibited four prima facie

defects that meant the Statement of Claim was an AVAP that should be reviewed by the CPN7 document-based show cause procedure. The Statement of Claim in Action No. 2103 00364 was stayed on an interim basis, and Mr. Savage was invited to submit an up to ten- page Written Submission that responded to four questions: Savage #1 at para 31 . [ 3 ] I also ordered that an Application scheduled for March 12, 2021 in a separate action, Savage v Sekura Bros Inc , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 2003 07515, should be stayed: Savage #1 at paras 34-35 . The alleged basis for that Application is that Mr.

Sniderman is in a conflict of interest because of the Statement of Claim filed in Action No. 2103 00364. [ 4 ] On March 18, 2021, I received a further letter from counsel for the Defendants that reported Mr. Savage had retained counsel, and that the parties had agreed to conclude Action No. 2103 00364 with no costs to any party. A draft Consent Dismissal Order was attached. I have signed the Consent Dismissal Order. That ends the Action No. 2103 00364. [ 5 ] What remains is the stayed Application in Action No. 2003 07515. That Application involves three issues: 1. recusal of Mr.

Sniderman (paras 1, 4-5); 2. the status of certain seized equipment and tools (paras 2, 6-7); and 3. scheduling of an application that was adjourned sine die on July 17, 2020 (para 3). [ 6 ] The recusal issue is now resolved since Mr. Savage’s lawsuit against the Defendants has been terminated. Paragraphs 1 and 4-5 of the Application are struck out, and the interim stay for the Application in Action No. 2003 07515 Application is vacated. Mr. Savage may contact the Court Clerks to re-schedule the remaining matters in that Application, if Mr.

Savage wishes to pursue same. [ 7 ] Counsel for the Defendants shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Decision in relation to the Application in Action No. 2003 07515. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 23 rd day of March, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Michelle Andresen McAllister LLP for the Plaintiff Jennifer E. Halloran Kingsgate Legal for the Defendants