Tilley v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 310

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Tilley v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 310 Date: 20210420 Docket: 2103 04736 Registry: Edmonton Between: Douglas Andrew Tilley Plaintiff - and - The British Columbia Attorney General, the Attorney General of Canada, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On April 13, 2021, Douglas Andrew Tilley (Mr. Tilley) filed a six-page Statement of Claim that names the Attorney General

of British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada, and the RCMP as Defendants. Mr. Tilley’s Statement of Claim was referred to me by the Clerk of the Court as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5. I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. CPN7 is reviewable on- line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes. [ 2 ] The Statement of Claim indicates that Mr.

Tilley is the target of a conspiracy between various law enforcement organizations, doctors, health authorities, social assistance organizations, legal services, estranged family members, and the Defendant Attorneys General. This conspiracy involves information that relates to Mr. Tilley’s mental health and that Mr. Tilley indicates is false and biased. Mr.

Tilley initially describes a part of that conspiracy this way: That in 2011 New Denver RCMP were recruited by 3rd parties that I was an insane, psychopath, a severely mentally ill threat, a drug addict, and stored this non medically or legally proven information in their system. That this information was presented to them by 3rd parties that had no direct contact with me. That the RCMP acted on this information in Violation of my Charter Rights and their own judgement.

That the RCMP colluded with 3rd parties in the secret unconsented control of my life including the recruitment of my personal family physician, local health authority and local legal advocacy group. [ 3 ] The Statement of Claim reports this conspiracy and false information has led to many incidents that form “... a continuum that started in 2011 ...”, including: 1) the RCMP did not respond appropriately when “authorities stole my dirt bike”; 2) in 2012 the RCMP kicked in his door without a warrant because of a fabricated “Mental Health Crisis”, and subsequently similar events occurred in the following years; 3) “... the RCMP were agents for the other parties secret illegal control, a control they have repeatedly refused to investigate btd are on record being involved in or complacent to.” (sic); 4) “Nelson Cares” illegally and secretly controls Mr.

Tilley’s life and housing without his consent, and the RCMP will not investigate that; 5) in 2012 the RCMP and a Justice Canada lawyer improperly investigated criminal charges against a doctor; and 6) Mr. Tilley was coerced and tricked into signing a power of attorney, and the RCMP did not investigate that. [ 4 ] Mr. Tilley concludes: That these accumulative events involving the RCMP and Attorney Generals of both British Columbia and Canada constitute severe RCMP negligence that has involved numerous Charter Rights violations. That as a result of the accumulated actions Mr.

Douglas Andrew Tilley has suffered severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and permanent psychological trauma as a result of this institutionalized abuse and repeated Charter Rights Violations. [ 5 ] The Statement of Claim seeks as remedies: A full police investigation and prosecution of any and all individuals involved in these acts. Financial compensation in the amount suitable for the severe psycholigical trauma and abuse caused by these actions. In excess 100,000 but not more the 1,000,000 A correction of false stored RCMP infomation. (Sic.) [ 6 ] I have reviewed Mr.

Tilley’s Statement of Claim and conclude that it is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude Mr. Tilley’s Statement of Claim should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . That means I have decided that Mr. Tilley must file a Written Submission setting out why his Statement of Claim should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II.

CPN7 [ 7 ] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 ( Unrau #1 ). [ 8 ] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out the AVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court .

[9] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission ofup to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted tocontinue. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and mustalso be served on the other parties to the litigation. [10] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face ofthe pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 at paras 22 and 24. [11] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrowfocus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB 347 atparas 24-48 (Ubah #2). There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceedingthat are related to the suspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt tolitigate an issue that has already been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III. Analysis [12] Mr. Tilley’s Statement of Claim appears to exhibit several issues. A. Inadequate Pleadings [13] 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. [14] Mr. Tilley cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill in theblanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20. A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, but goes tothe 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 a respondentcannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the Court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposed argument, ormake findings on the relevant facts: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. [15] Many aspects of Mr. Tilley’s allegations appear to be bald allegations. The Statement of Claim states Mr. Tilley’s life iscontrolled in clandestine ways, but provides no examples of how that happened. Mr.

Tilley does not link events to actors, for example theStatement of Claim states: ... this most recent event likely includes the RCMP using the Edmonton Police Services to harass me under this false MH concern.Although it is possible it was initiated by 3rd parties and biased by the RCMP stored information. This kind of claim does not appear to provide the “who, when, where, and how” that would permit a meaningful response. [16] Further, Mr. Tilley alleges some kind of Charter breaches or infringement, but neither identifies what specific Charter rightsare involved, or how those breaches occurred.

This does not appear to satisfy the Mackay v Manitoba criteria for adequate Charterpleadings. It is unclear whether Mr. Tilley is only seeking a Charter remedy, or is advancing a tort claim for negligence, or both. [17] I request Mr. Tilley indicate how his Statement of Claim provides pleadings that permit the Court and Defendants to make ameaningful response. B. No Jurisdiction [18] Mr. Tilley names the Attorney General of British Columbia as a Defendant.

Recently, in Fitter International Inc v BritishColumbia, 2021 ABCA 54 at para 39, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that a litigant could not sue British Columbia in an Albertacourt, citing this statement by Brown and Rowe JJ in Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashatand of Mani-Utenam), 2020 SCC 4 at paras 274-275: The constitutional principle of Crown immunity means that the Crown can be sued only with its permission. ... All provincial legislatureshave introduced legislation allowing the Crown to be sued, but only in their own courts ... It is this simple.

The Crown of one provincecannot be sued in another province’s court ... (Citations omitted, emphasis added.) [19] I request Mr. Tilley indicate why this Court is not bound by Fitter International Inc v British Columbia and has jurisdictionin a lawsuit against the government of British Columbia. C. Excessive or Impossible Remedies

[20] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Mr. Tilley’s Statement of Claim seeks “A full police investigation and prosecution of any and all individuals involved in theseacts.” This remedy is outside the Court’s adjudicative function and appears to intrude into the jurisdictions of Canadian law enforcementand Crown prosecutors. [21] I request Mr.

Tilley indicate the basis in law for this Court to make an Order that directs the activities of law enforcement andCrown prosecutors. [22] The Statement of Claim seeks between $100,000 and $1,000,000 in “financial compensation” for “severe psychologicaltrauma and abuse” (sic). This may be a tort claim, or some kind of Charter damages claim, or both.

However, that question is irrelevantsince the Supreme Court of Canada in Vancouver (City) v Ward, 2010 SCC 27 at para 48 instructed the quantum for either alternative isevaluated on the same basis. [23] The maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed for pain and suffering 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. [24] Mr.

Tilley’s claim range exceeds that maximum, and that maximum amount was appropriate in instances of severe negativeoutcomes, for example where a young adult was injured so as to be nearly completely disabled. Mr. Tilley does not allege severe physicalinjury, but instead the Statement of Claim makes bald allegations of suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and permanent psychologicaltrauma. [25] I request Mr. Tilley indicate why his “financial compensation” claim is not an excessive or impossible remedy. IV. Conclusion [26] Mr.

Tilley’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks Mr.Tilley respond to four questions: 1. How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2. How does this Court have jurisdiction to conduct proceedings against the government of British Columbia? 3. What is the basis in law for this Court to make an Order that directs the activities of law enforcement and Crown prosecutors? 4.

How are the remedies sought in the Statement of Claim not excessive or impossible? [27] CPN7 now advances to its second step. This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearancesor oral argument. The next steps are: 1) Mr. Tilley has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as described inpara 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement ofClaim should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If Mr. Tilley provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each provide a Written Reply ofup to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate ChiefJustice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives Mr. Tilley’s Written Submission and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will make itsfinal decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (seeCPN7, para 3(e)). [28] Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 2103 04736 Action is stayed until further notice. The Court will prepare andserve an Interim Order staying this action (see CPN7, para 7). Mr.

Tilley’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 20th day of April, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: None