Scheuchner v Neufeld, 2021 ABQB 296

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Scheuchner v Neufeld, 2021 ABQB 296 Date: 20210420 Docket: 2101 03302 Registry: Calgary Between: Todd Scheuchner Applicant - and - Mark Neufeld (Calgary Police Chief), Brenda Lucki (Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner), and Kaycee Madu (Minister of Justice) Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On March 10, 2021, Todd Scheuchner [Mr. Scheuchner] filed a 54-page “Originating Application”, also labelled as:

Writ of Mandamus First Nations Law Canadian Constitution Sect 35(1)(4)

(5) The Indian Act Bill C-31 [Emphasis in original.] The Application names the three Respondents as reproduced in the style of cause, above. The Application was accompanied by a 220- page Affidavit of Mr. Scheuchner, sworn on the same date. [ 2 ] On April 13, 2021, Counsel for the Hon. Kaycee Madu, Minister of Justice and Solicitor-General [the Minister], by letter, referred Mr. Scheuchner’s Application to the Court as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6.

Subsequently, on April 15, 2021, Counsel for Chief Neufeld wrote a letter to the Court in support of the Minister’s CNP7 referral. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 3 ] The Application is a lengthy document. Some parts are handwritten, other parts are typed. Certain Application pages appear to be print-outs of websites, newspaper stories, or are complete or incomplete photocopied documents. There are several photographs, apparently of Mr. Scheuchner and his child. [ 4 ] Some materials in the Application and Affidavit are duplicates.

The Application and Affidavit include much information about Mr. Scheuchner’s background, him being a convicted criminal, the death of both his mother and the mother of his child, and Mr. Scheuchner’s attempts to gain custody of and access to that child. Those elements are, however, outside the filings’ actual objective. As best I can distill, Mr. Scheuchner’s intent, and his complaint, is that he is the target of unconventional energy devices operated by law enforcement actors who intend to cause Mr.

Scheuchner harm: POLICE FROM CALGARY AND EDMONTON MAJOR CRIMES, AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE INCLUDING ITS ALBERTA K-DIVISION’S (ON COMMAND - PRISONS) AND IN THE COMMUNITY TORTURED ME with the use of Directed energy weapons, microwave, Auditory, Radiowaves, Lasers, And thermology. [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 5 ] Mr. Scheuchner’s documents report that he was diagnosed with cancer in 2016 and 2020, and underwent chemotherapy. Mr. Scheuchner attributes his cancer to the police energy device torture. Mr.

Scheuchner also describes experiencing physical abnormalities, such as what he perceives as hollow facial bones, that he attributes to the police energy device torture. The Application indicates these energy-based attacks continued while Mr. Scheuchner was incarcerated in the Edmonton Institution. Mr. Scheuchner in his Application says this torture will continue until he is murdered, which he calls “murder by torture”. [ 6 ] The Application has two “Remedy” sections. One is crossed out and annotated “Filing out of Province”. The second “Remedy”

section reads: Police to stop, halt, desist, cease, discontinue, end, quit what there are enacting Torture! That has effected not just the mind And Body, that includes the spirit. It is the courts Responsibility, this started on Crown Attorney Land, I ASK the court to have the Justice ministers office, the chief of the Calgary Police Mark Neufeld And the RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to have it (torture) that treatment stopped.

Major Crimes Calgary And Edmonton Police, K-Division RCMP Calgary And Edmonton. [Sic.] [ 7 ] The Application identifies a range of allegedly relevant authorities, many of which are in part reproduced by hand, including: Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act , SC 2000, c 24 ; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , Canadian Human Rights Act , RSC 1985, c H-6 ; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ; The Constitution Act , 1982 , being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [ Charter ]; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ; and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture . [ 8 ] My conclusion is that Mr. Scheuchner has applied to the Court for an order that the named Respondents compel police agencies to cease attacking and torturing Mr. Scheuchner via energy weapons. After review of the Application and Affidavit, I conclude that the Application is an AVAP that should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II.

CPN7 [ 9 ] 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 ]. [ 10 ] 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 strikeout the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to 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. [ 11 ] 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 ofevidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates toexamine 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 thesuspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that hasalready been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III CPN7 Analysis [12] The Application appears to have several issues. A. Extraordinary Claims [13] In a Rule 3.68 procedure, pleaded 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 the 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.” [14] Mr. Scheuchner provides much detail on certain aspects of how he allegedly has been the target of police-operated energyweapons.

He attributes his cancer to that activity, but provides no basis to explain or substantiate that claim. The Application andAffidavit do not explain the nature of these attacks, or how Mr. Scheuchner knows he has been attacked by energy weapons. Moreover,although these documents do at times appear to reference some technical materials and/or reports about the possibility of energy-typeweaponry, Mr. Scheuchner provides no explanation of how he knows it is the police who conduct(ed) these attacks. [15] Succinctly, Mr. Scheuchner’s claims are extraordinary claims, and so I request that Mr.

Scheuchner explain how his claimsare not so highly implausible, or extraordinary, that these alleged facts ought not to be accepted. B. Inadequate Pleadings [16] An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of thecase 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), 2015FCA 227 at paras 16-20.

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate tothe responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19. The Supreme Court of Canada in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485,instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potentialCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c11 (Charter) relief. [17] Mr. Scheuchner cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Respondents to “fillin the 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. [18] I have previously discussed how the Application does not provide many alleged facts or explanations for its claims. AlthoughMr. Scheuchner has filed lengthy documents, they contain important gaps. Many claims are simply bald allegations.

Further, the threenamed Respondents are not allegedly directly implicated in any of the alleged incidents of police-mediated energy weapon torture. [19] The Application does not appear to provide the Respondents or the Court with an adequate basis to make a response to Mr.Scheuchner’s claims, particularly in light of the high standard set in Mackay v Manitoba where alleged Charter rights were involved.This is a second issue to which I seek a response from Mr. Scheuchner: how does the Application provide a basis for the Court andRespondents to make a meaningful response. IV.

CPN7 Analysis [20] The Docket No. 2101 03302 Application appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks aresponse from Mr. Scheuchner as to how his Application: 1. does not make extraordinary claims that are not so highly implausible, or extraordinary, that these alleged facts ought not to beaccepted, and 2. provides a basis for the Court and Respondents to make a meaningful response. [21] As a result of this analysis, I order that Mr. Scheuchner’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 03302 Action isstayed.

The scheduled Chambers appearance set for April 26, 2021 is cancelled.

[ 22 ] CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Mr. Scheuchner has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages , pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. A Written Submission that is over the 10 page limit may not be accepted. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr. Scheuchner provides and serves a Written Submission, as limited above, then the Respondents have seven days to each make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Mr.

Scheuchner’s Written Submission, and the Respondents’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Docket 2101 03302 Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 23 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this Action. Mr. Scheuchner’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 20 th day of April, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Kate Bridgett Director, Civil Litigation Team Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, Legal Services for the Respondent, the Hon. Kaycee Madu Molly Naber-Sykes QC Legal Counsel Calgary Police Service for the Respondent, Chief Neufeld