McKee v RBC Insurance, 2021 ABQB 447

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: McKee v RBC Insurance, 2021 ABQB 447 Date: 20210608 Docket: 2103 07002 Registry: Edmonton Between: Glen W. McKee Plaintiff - and - R.B.C. Insurance and Royal Bank of Canada Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On May 31, 2021, Glen W. McKee (Mr. McKee) filed a two-page handwritten Statement of Claim that names R.B.C. Insurance and the Royal Bank of Canada as Defendants. Mr.

McKee’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 body of Mr. McKee’s Statement of Claim reads as follows: Statement of facts relied on: R.B.C. INSURANCE TAKING FUNDS FROM MY PERSONAL CHEQUING ACCOUNT, WITHOUT MY AUTHORITY, OR SIGNATURE (3rd PARTY) TOTALLY ILLEGAL! NO SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY! PLUS, NO COVERAGE FOR 6 YEARS; PREMIUMS WERE “N.B.” TAKEN FROM AGE: 69-75 YEARS OF AGE; WITHOUT * COVERAGE! (HAVE STATEMENTS TOO PROVE THIS). $36,000.00 ALSO, TAKING FROM MY PERSONAL CHEQING ACCOUNT TO PAY FOR MY CRIDIT LINE; IS TWO

(2) DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS! (NOT LEGAL). “ OLD ADDAGE ”: ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL! IS THAT LEGAL?? (SAME THING)! Remedy sought: RESTITUTION, OF: $357,000.00 WOULD BE A FAIR AMOUNT; CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE! WHICH ARE VERY SERIOUS OFFENCES! CAUSING STRESS, LACK OF AVAILABLE FUNDS, + A TOTAL LACK OF LOYALITY TOO A 30 YR.+ CUSTOMER; +LACK OF RESPECT TOO A SENIOR CITIZEN OF CANADIAN ORIGINALITY!!! ORIGINALLY, I ONLY ASKED FOR A REPLACEMENT OF THE “ PRINCIPLE ”; WHICH THEY TOOK ILLEGALLY! ASKING THE ROYAL BANK TO DO THE HONOURABLE THING; WHICH THEY REFUSED, TO DO!!!

NOW, WE WILL BE AFTER “ ALL ” THE DETAILS OF THIS MATTER, UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED ; TOO MY SATISFACTION!!! (ENDING WITH: THE ROYAL BANK & THEIR INSURANCE). THIS BEING A TOTAL “DISGRACE” TO ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; BUT, TOO “ ALL ” OF CANADA AS A WHOLE!! I DO HOLD “ ALL ” THE DOCUMENTS, OR FACTS OF THIS MATTER; AS PROOF , IF NEED BE!!! (Sic.) [ 3 ] I have reviewed Mr. McKee’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.

McKee’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. McKee must file a Written Submission setting out why his Statement of Claim should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II. CPN7 [ 4 ] 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 ). [ 5 ] 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 . [ 6 ] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and must also be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 7 ] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes 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 and 24 . [ 8 ] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrow focus and operates to examine 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 the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45 ). III. Analysis [ 9 ] Mr. McKee’s Statement of Claim appears to exhibit several issues.

A. Inadequate Pleadings [10] 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, see also Quaye v Law Society of Alberta, 2021 ABCA 167 at para 13. [11] Mr. McKee 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]. [12] While it is possible to discern some of elements of what Mr.

McKee alleges, many critical facts are unclear. For example, Mr.McKee alleges R.B.C. Insurance was “taking funds” from his personal chequing account. What was the account? How were the fundstaken? On one hand Mr. McKee says there was “no signed agreement with the insurance company”. That seems to indicate Mr. McKeedenies there was some kind of contract with R.B.C. Insurance. Then Mr. McKee says he had “no coverage for 6 years”. Why would Mr.McKee expect “coverage” if there was no contract? If there was an insurance contract, what was it for? Where does the $36,000 figurecome from?

Is that the amount of funds allegedly taken? A claim that was rejected for “no coverage”? How is R.B.C. Insurance a “3rdParty”, and to what? What are the “statements”? Bank account statements? Insurance premium statements? Or statements from a person? [13] It is clear that Mr. McKee complains that money was transferred between a bank account and a line of credit, and without hisauthorization. However, Mr. McKee fails to provide the “who, when, where, how, and what” to explain this alleged illegality. Was this aRoyal Bank of Canada account and line of credit?

What is the identifying information for the account and line of credit? When did theallegedly improper transfer or transfers occur? If Mr. McKee says that money was used to reduce a debt, then how was he injured? Itseems he would come out “even”, since the reduced credit to the account would equal the reduced debt in the line of credit. Is this anunjust enrichment claim? A breach of contract? An action in tort? [14] In light of these observations, I request that Mr. McKee indicate how his pleadings provide an adequate basis for the Courtand Defendants to make a meaningful response to his Statement of Claim. B.

Excessive or Impossible Remedies [15] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Mr. McKee’s Statement of Claim seeks $357,000, which is “restitution”. Restitution means return of property that was improperlytaken. As I have previously indicated, Mr. McKee’s Statement of Claim does not provide a basis to understand his allegations against theDefendants. One possibility is he may be alleging illegal payment of $36,000 in insurance premiums.

However, that is only a smallfraction of the “restitution” that he has claimed. [16] Instead, Mr. McKee appears to be alleging some kind of tort injury. He says the Defendants caused “stress” and denied himuse of money, although Mr. McKee does not explain how that harmed him. He complains of being disrespected.

It appears that Mr.McKee’s injury claims, such as they are pled, are best characterized as a general damages “pain and suffering” claim. [17] 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. [18] Mr. McKee’s claim very closely approaches that maximum.

A maximum general damages amount is appropriate in instancesof severe negative outcomes, for example where a young adult was injured so as to be nearly completely disabled. Mr. McKee does notallege severe physical injury. Instead, the Statement of Claim makes bald allegations that Mr. McKee has experienced “stress”. [19] I request Mr. McKee indicate why his “restitution” claim is not an excessive or impossible remedy. IV. Conclusion [20] Mr. McKee’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks thatMr. McKee respond to two questions: 1.

How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2. How are the remedies sought in the Statement of Claim not excessive or impossible? [21] 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. McKee has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as describedin para 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 of Claim 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. McKee provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each provide a Written Reply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Replies must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives Mr.

McKee’s Written Submission and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will make its final 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 (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 22 ] Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 2103 07002 is stayed until further notice. The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this Action (see CPN7, para 7). Mr. McKee’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta th is 8 th day of June, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None