Snaychuk v Edmonton (City), 2021 ABQB 295

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Snaychuk v Edmonton (City), 2021 ABQB 295 Date: 20210416 Dockets: 1903 23598, 1903 07409 Registry: Edmonton Between: Docket 1903 23598 Cherry Snaychuk Plaintiff - and - City of Edmonton, Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service, Shane Falkner, Matthew Roucek, Chad Martin, Lucy Janija Defendants And Between: Docket 1903 07409 Cherry Snaychuk Plaintiff - and - City of Edmonton, Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service, Edmonton Bylaw, Str. Peter Hlbocan, Celia Frattin Defendants

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On November 18, 2019, Cherry Snaychuk (Ms. Snaychuk) filed a Statement of Claim, Action No. 1903 23598 (Claim 1), naming as Defendants: the City of Edmonton, the Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service, Shane Falkner, Matthew Roucek, Chad Martin, and Lucy Janija. Four days later Ms.

Snaychuk filed an Amended Statement of Claim, Action No. 1903 07409 (Claim 2), that named the City of Edmonton, the Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service, Edmonton Bylaw, Str. Peter Hlbocan, and Celia Frattin as Defendants. [ 2 ] On December 11, 2019, Counsel for the Chief of the Edmonton Police Service, and Counsel for Matthew Roucek jointly by letter referred the two Statements of Claim as potential Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (AVAPs), pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7) paragraph 6.

I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 3 ] In a decision reported as Snaychuk v Edmonton (City) , 2020 ABQB 1 ( Snaychuk #1 ), I concluded that Ms. Snaychuk’s Statements of Claim exhibited prima facie defects so that these filings should be subject to a CPN7 document-based show cause review. Ms.

Snaychuk was asked to provide a Written Submission of up to ten pages that answered four questions: 1) How does the Claim One provide an adequate basis for the Court and the Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2) How does the Claim One not seek disproportionate or impossible remedies? 3) How does the Claim Two provide an adequate basis for the Court and the Defendants to make a meaningful response? 4) How does the Claim Two not seek disproportionate or impossible remedies? ( Snaychuk #1 at para 24 ). [ 4 ] The original Snaychuk #1 deadlines for Ms.

Snaychuk’s Written Submission were extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting stay of Court litigation. On August 26, 2020, I, by letter, instructed Ms. Snaychuk that she should respond with her Written Submission by September 30, 2020. No response has been received from Ms. Snaychuk. [ 5 ] I conclude that Ms. Snaychuk has not rebutted the prima facie defects identified in Snaychuk #1 .

I, therefore, on that basis strike out both Claim 1 and Claim 2 as hopeless proceedings, and as an abuse of the Court’s processes pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 and CPN7, para 3(c). [ 6 ] 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. Snaychuk sought a total of $4 million in damages. Given that quantum, and

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court , I order Ms. Snaychuk pay the Defendants: 1) the Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service, and 2) Matthew Roucek $500 in costs, each, forthwith. No costs are awarded to those Defendants who were not participants in the CPN7 process. [ 7 ] Counsel for the Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Snaychuk’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta thi s 16 th day of April, 2021.

K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Angela Beierbach Field Law LLP For the Defendant Chief of Police Edmonton Police Service Michelle Wolowidnyk Weir Bowen For the Defendant Matthew Roucek