Piers v Proudman, 2021 ABQB 349

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Piers v Proudman, 2021 ABQB 349 Date: 20210503 Docket: 2103 02301 Registry: Edmonton Between: Navia Rose Piers Plaintiff - and - Kenneth J. Proudman Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On February 24, 2021, Navia Rose Piers (Ms. Piers) filed a Statement of Claim that named Kenneth J. Proudman (Mr. Proudman) as the Defendant. Counsel for Mr. Proudman subsequently by letter referred to the Court Ms.

Piers’ Statement of Claim, along with an Affidavit of Ms. Piers filed and sworn on February 24, 2021, as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding

(AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. [ 2 ] Mr. Proudman is counsel for Ms. Piers’ former husband in a family law proceeding ( Piers v Piers , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket FL03 59878) and in a second civil lawsuit where Ms. Piers and her ex-husband are both Defendants ( Piers v Piers , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 1803 18687). [ 3 ] The objective of the Docket 2103 02301 Statement of Claim is difficult to identify. The Statement of Claim: 1) indicates Mr. Proudman has committed a number of criminal offences; 2) makes allegations relating to litigation between Ms.

Piers and her ex-husband; 3) alleges Mr. Proudman made illegal use of Ms. Piers’ confidential information; 4) complains that Mr. Proudman has damaged the integrity of the legal profession; and 5) alleges Mr. Proudman injured Ms. Piers’ health during a pregnancy. [ 4 ] The Statement of Claims seeks: ... An order for Law Society of Alberta to suspend or revoke the License to practice of Kenneth J. Proudman. ... An order to cease further actions and to have him withdraw from his illegally constructed case (FL0359878) that he has dragged for 1.5 years through criminal actions. ...

An order to dismiss les pendens placed by Kenneth J. Proudman on the properties under my name, my company’s name and my current husband’s name. ... costs of damages incurred by his actions. (Sic.) [ 5 ] I reviewed Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim, and, in a decision reported as Piers v Proudman , 2021 ABQB 253 ( Piers #1 ), concluded that the Statement of Claim appeared to exhibit prima facie defects that warranted a CPN7 show-cause document-based review. Ms.

Piers was requested to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission that answered four questions: 1) How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response? 2) Why is the Statement of Claim not a duplicate proceeding and/or collateral attack on the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench FL03 09878 Action? 3) How does the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench have the authority to suspend or revoke the licence of a lawyer? 4) Why in law does Mr. Proudman, while operating as a lawyer representing an opposing party, have a duty of care to Ms.

Piers? ( Piers #1 at para 30 .) [ 6 ] Ms. Piers submitted a ten-page Written Submission on April 13, 2021. Counsel for Mr. Proudman submitted a Written Reply on April 21, 2021. With the receipt of these materials the CPN7 process now moves to its final step: to determine whether Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 and CPN7, para 3(e). II. Analysis A. General Submissions [ 7 ] Ms. Piers’ Written Submission is broader than only answers to the four questions posed in Piers #1 . Ms.

Piers stresses she is self-represented, and that her rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,

Part 1 of the Constitution Act , 1982 , being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 ( Charter ). The Written Submission identifies the Charter s 15(1) right to equality, and says lawyers, such as Mr. Proudman, are treated differently: ... Seeking remedy to have a case dismissed that rose by the actions of an individual that holds legal title of counsel and has access to shortcuts of how to use the law to abuse the law, constitutes as undue influence to cause distress and injury upon me. (Sic.) [ 8 ] Some of the Written Submission appears to be evidence, or to elaborate on aspects of Mr. Proudman’s alleged misconduct.

For example, the Written Submission: 1) describes additional litigation by the sister of Ms. Piers’ ex-husband; 2) alleges incidents of perjury;

3) alleges how Mr. Proudman colluded with Ms. Piers’ former lawyer; 4) describes events at an October 28, 2019 hearing before Master Schlosser; and 5) argues the relevance of information on a court procedure card. [ 9 ] I have disregarded these alleged facts and narratives found in the Written Submissions. They are inadmissible. Rule 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court prohibits evidence being filed in a r 3.68 process where that evidence purports to relate to whether the filing has “no reasonable claim or defence to a claim”. [ 10 ] Ms. Piers argues her action should not be struck out. Ms.

Piers clarifies that she seeks $2,176,250 from Mr. Proudman. That damages quantum was not in the Statement of Claim. The Written Submission asserts Ms. Piers’ claim is not frivolous or vexatious, as she has the right to protect her habitat, her family’s quality of life, and to obtain fair justice. [ 11 ] The Written Submission concludes that Mr. Proudman and Ms. Piers’ ex-husband are the ones who engage in vexatious litigation, and employ collateral attack strategies. Ms.

Piers says these efforts have a bad intent: ... they have been the ones abusing the process of litigation to drag their claims to trial or in their goal to exhaust me in settling to stop the vicious attack on my mental health through their illegal criminal actions that have been supported to function with a fake face and an orchestrated act of judge presumption of their representations made by “competent and knowledgeable counsel”. (Sic.) [ 12 ] Ms. Piers states she plans to consolidate her lawsuit against Mr.

Proudman with the Docket FL03 59878 family law litigation with her ex-husband: ... so that I can bring the truth, facts and evidence to the surface whereas its been one the main goals of Ken Proudman to bury the truth, facts and evidence with compiling useless documents, blame throwing, accusations and false story telling to put his client in the best position he can in the present to somehow justify that his claim has a valid excuse to exist. ... (Sic.) [ 13 ] Counsel for Mr. Proudman submits that Ms. Piers’ action is hopeless and abusive.

The Written Reply identifies numerous issues, including inadequate pleadings, but also that many of Ms. Piers’ claims are hopeless: 1) Ms. Piers acknowledges Mr. Proudman does not owe her a duty of care; 2) breach of privacy is not a tort recognized in Canadian law: Yuill v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission) , 2017 ABQB 523 at para 40 ; Kang v MB , 2019 ABQB 246 at paras 152-153 ; 3) Ms. Piers invokes the Charter , but the Charter has no application to private individuals such as Mr. Proudman: Charter , s 32; and 4) Ms.

Piers cannot use alleged breaches of the Law Society of Alberta’s Code of Conduct ( Code ) as a basis for some kind of civil claim: Carbone v Burnett , 2019 ABQB 98 at paras 15-16 ; Correia v Jaycock , 2001 ABQB 299 at para 23 . [ 14 ] The Written Reply describes Ms.

Piers’ lawsuit as an abusive and vexatious proceeding, arguing that the Statement of Claim exhibits four of the major abusive litigation indicia categories identified in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 : collateral attacks, hopeless proceedings, proceedings with an improper purpose, and claims that are unjustified or inappropriate. Counsel for Mr. Proudman also stresses that now in her Written Submission Ms. Piers is claiming over $2 million in damages, but has not provided a basis for a claim of that size.

The Written Reply also submits allegations of fraud and conspiracy, linked with unsubstantiated allegations and inflammatory language, are a further basis to conclude Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court. B. Inadequate Pleadings [ 15 ] Piers #1 at paras 15-20 reviews the law relating to the minimum alleged factual requirements for a valid Statement of Claim, and identifies how Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim contains “bald allegations”, claims that do not provide the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.” Piers #1 requests Ms.

Piers indicate how her pleadings provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response. [ 16 ] The Written Submission responds to this question in two ways. First, Ms. Piers observes that since her pled allegations are presumed true, “... then the statement of claim as a whole should raise questions” (Sic.). Ms. Piers then lists numerous questions, including: Why did Ken Proudman commit crimes he is being accused of? ...

Why did Ken collude with counsel and share my wrongfully obtained disclosure to parties in the civil action when he was well aware of the position that my ex-counsel took when there was no consent obtained for a fraudulent consent order? ... Did Ken Proudman instruct his client, assist his client, knowing that his client initiated the family law case based on swearing multiple

false statements in his initial affidavit that was used to wrongfully obtain an ex parte order? (Sic.) [ 17 ] Second, Ms. Piers states the Alberta Rules of Court do “... not mention the layout of details necessary within those stated facts that must be produce questions that need the opposing party to respond to for proper progression of a proceeding ...” (sic), and cites r 3.72(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 18 ] Mr. Proudman’s Written Reply observes that Ms. Piers’ allegations generally fail to provide necessary particulars: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) , 2015 FCA 226 at paras 16 , 19.

Further, both the Statement of Claim and Written Submission make numerous allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, but those allegations do not satisfy the r 13.7 of the Alberta Rules of Court requirement for particulars in response to allegations of that type: Ruby v Mills , 2019 ABQB 451 at para 37 . [ 19 ] I agree with the Written Reply. Ms. Piers has not rebutted my findings in Piers #1 that she did not provide adequate particulars for her allegations. Her Written Submission, if anything, only broadens the allegations against Mr. Proudman. This is a first basis on which I conclude Ms.

Piers’ Statement of Claim is an abuse of Court processes and should be struck out. C. Collateral Attack and/or Duplicate Proceedings [ 20 ] Canadian law generally prohibits duplicate proceedings and collateral attacks. Collateral attacks are litigation that seeks to directly or indirectly challenge a prior Court decision outside the regular appeal process. Piers #1 at paras 21-24 indicates that Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim appears to be a collateral attack on Piers v Piers FL03 09878 Action, or duplicates that litigation. [ 21 ] Ms.

Piers rejects that conclusion: This lawsuit does not duplicate the family law proceeding because it is intended to provide proof through facts and evidence of the family law claim being operated by an incompetent or actions of a lawyer that are contrary to law and contrary to code of conducts of the governing body responsible for the conduct of lawyers.

It shows how a lawyer who has undertaken the responsibility on behalf of his client in the family law action has inflicted injury through his actions taken as counsel and as a representative of law through misrepresentation, collusion, and other pleadings made within this document to his actions. ... (Sic.) [ 22 ] The Written Submission also states that the Alberta Rules of Court permits the consolidation of multiple actions, and her Statement of Claim: ... is not a collateral attack but an approach to seek justice and expose the otherwise hidden truth within the family law case that is being overlooked, ignored or hidden by the actions of Ken Proudman's misguidance and misrepresentation. (Sic.) [ 23 ] Counsel for Mr.

Proudman argues that many of the allegations and claims in Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim duplicate the family law proceeding, or attempt to challenge pre-existing decisions. As an illustration, the Written Reply notes that the recent Piers v Piers , 2021 ABQB 299 decision of Justice Hayes-Richard evaluates and rejects Ms. Piers’ limitations period argument, which is the same issue that Ms. Piers advances at paras 3 and 5 of the Statement of Claim in this Action. [ 24 ] Counsel for Mr. Proudman also observes that one of the remedies sought by Ms. Piers, “An order to cease further actions and to have [Mr.

Proudman] withdraw from his illegally constructed case (FL0359878). ...”, explicitly seeks to interfere in a separate action. Similarly, lis pendens that were filed in the family law dispute should only be challenged in that proceeding. [ 25 ] I agree with Mr. Proudman’s Written Reply. Furthermore, Ms. Piers is quite explicit in her Written Submission as to what this Action is all about.

She disagrees with outcomes in the family law proceedings, and seeks to re-introduce issues and new alleged facts into that action by merging the Docket 2103 02301 and FL03 09878 Actions via consolidation pursuant to r 3.72 of the Alberta Rules of Court . Saying one will merge duplicate proceedings does not make the duplication any less improper. [ 26 ] I therefore conclude that Ms.

Piers’ Docket 2103 02301 Statement of Claim is both a collateral attack upon decisions and orders in the Piers v Piers FL03 09878 Action, and attempts to duplicate and re-introduce decided questions in the Piers v Piers FL03 09878 Action. This is a second reason the Statement of Claim is an abusive proceeding, and should be struck out. D. Regulation of Mr. Proudman’s Professional Credentials [ 27 ] Ms. Piers’ Statement of Claim seeks “An order for Law Society of Alberta to suspend or revoke the License to practice of Kenneth J. Proudman”. I requested Ms.

Piers indicate how the Court had the authority to take this step, since the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 gives the Law Society of Alberta sole jurisdiction to determine who may practice law in Alberta: Piers #1 at paras 25- 26 . [ 28 ] Ms. Piers’ Written Submission acknowledges the Court may not have that authority, but instead says a judge may make an order directing the Law Society of Alberta “... recognize that there are multiple valid provable causes ...” to revoke Mr. Proudman’s licence, because that conduct injures the public and causes “... deterioration of trust in the justice system ...”.

It is my understanding that the courts govern all acts including the act of Legal profession known as the " Legal Profession Act " and are a higher power than the Law Society of Alberta therefore can make orders and directions to the Law Society of Alberta.

(Sic.) [ 29 ] Mr. Proudman submits Ms. Piers is seeking that the Court take steps that would circumvent the Legal Professions Act . Ms. Piers’ Written Submission does just that. Ms. Piers first acknowledges the Court does not administer the licencing of Alberta lawyers, but then turns around and argues the Court should direct the Law Society of Alberta. The Legal Profession Act is clear on the authority of the Law Society of Alberta. This Court’s only supervisory role of the Law Society of Alberta and its licencing of lawyers is via review of Law Society of Alberta decisions. Ms.

Piers’ remedy is a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta, not this Court. Ms. Piers is therefore seeking an impossible remedy for which this Court has no jurisdiction, which is another basis to conclude her Statement of Claim abuses the Court’s processes. E. Duty of Care [ 30 ] In Piers #1 at paras 27-29 , I identified legal authorities that state a lawyer does not have a duty of care to opposing parties, and asked Ms. Piers to explain how Mr. Proudman’s conduct breached a duty of care to Ms. Piers. [ 31 ] In her Written Submission, Ms. Piers acknowledges that Mr. Proudman owed no duty of care to her. Ms.

Piers however indicates Mr. Proudman should still be subject to his obligations under the Law Society of Alberta Code and the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . Ms. Piers identifies and reproduces what she says are relevant Code provisions, including 2-1-1(2), 2-1-2, 3-1-1, 3-1-2, 3.2-10, and 3-2-13. Ms. Piers follows by asking what is the scope of a lawyer’s broader duties to the opposing parties and the public. [ 32 ] As I understand the Written Submission, Ms. Piers indicates that the approach Mr.

Proudman takes to divorce proceedings is wrong, as he approaches these matters more as a business transaction, rather than “love”, since: ... Love is the primary most valuable gift given to living beings, Love came into existence before material items or money. People such as Ken Proudman abuse this very gift of god by assisting in presenting it in such a shameful defamatory method and placing a third parties' opinion on a $ value of love and relationships to which he never played a direct role but is only a third party. ... (Sic.) [ 33 ] As indicated above, counsel for Mr.

Proudman takes the position that an alleged breach of the Law Society of Alberta Code is not a basis for a civil claim. I agree. As for Ms. Piers’ attempts to broaden the question, alleging Mr. Proudman brings the practice of law into disrepute, that is a question solely for the Law Society of Alberta. She should direct her complaint(

s) there. [ 34 ] This is another reason why the Statement of Claim should be struck out. III. Conclusion [ 35 ] I conclude on multiple bases that Ms. Piers’ litigation is abusive, hopeless litigation, that has no prospect for success. Pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , and CPN7, para 3(c), the Statement of Claim in Action No. 2103 02301 is struck out as an abuse of the Court. [ 36 ] 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. I order Ms. Piers to pay the Defendant $1,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 37 ] Counsel for Mr. Proudman shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Piers’ 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 3 rd day of May, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Navia Rose Piers Self-represented Litigant

Jennifer E. Halloran Kingsgate Legal for the Defendant Kenneth J. Proudman