Dueck v Calgary (City), 2021 ABQB 455

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dueck v Calgary (City), 2021 ABQB 455 Date: 20210611 Docket: 2101 06848 Registry: Calgary Between: Dara Margaret Nicol Dueck Plaintiff - and - City of Calgary, Shaw Communications Inc., Brad Shaw on behalf of Ted Rogers, Rogers Communications, and AHS Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On May 26, 2021, Dara Margaret Nicol Dueck [Ms.

Dueck] filed a Statement of Claim naming the City of Calgary, Shaw Communications Inc., “Brad Shaw on behalf of Ted Rogers”, Rogers Communications, and “AHS” as Defendants. On June 9, 2021, Counsel for Shaw Communications Inc., Brad Shaw, and Rogers Communications Inc. [Shaw/Rogers Defendants], by letter, referred

Ms. Dueck’s Application to the Court as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. Counsel for the Shaw/Rogers Defendants also noted no living member of the Rogers family has the name “Ted Rogers”. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 2 ] Ms. Dueck’s Statement of Claim is an unusual two-page document. It has two aspects. Part of the document is typewritten.

Then a great deal of handwritten text was added to the first page of the Statement of Claim, so that the handwritten text fills up most of the empty white space on that page. These annotations, or supplementary notations, are not organized in any apparent manner. Some are too faint to be legible. [ 3 ] The typewritten body of the Statement of Claim reads, in full: Statement of facts relied on: 1. Preconspired and Continued Excessive Hatred for myself in the Jamaican Israelite and Egyptian Canadian and American Community. 2.

A Murderous Plot to Hide Evidence he Spied, Behaved Reverse Generational Adverse Stalked, Spied, Stole Intellectual Property, Used Allies Against Her, Slandered, Defamed, ReEnslaved, Overran, Criminally Colluded, Destroy, Kill, Stalk, continually Harass, and Steal. Remedy sought: 3. Payout for full Damages, [+ PUNITIVE. - EXCESS of 1M] [Sic.] The text in square brackets was handwritten, and apparently intended to supplement the typed information in paragraph 3. [ 4 ] The front-page handwritten text appears to be divided into bullet points.

Some of these are: -PRACTICING PEDOPHILIA -RAPE BY AMERICA -CRIMINALS OF JERUSALEM -AMERICANS AGAINST THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (CRIMES AGAINST MY CANADIAN ETHNICITY NATIONALITY, AND HERITAGE) -UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT -RACIST AND PROFESSIONAL UNDERMINING -SLANDERED VICTIMS -RAN CRIMINAL HIERARCHY -VIOLATED HOUSHOLD PRIVACY -ACTING AS AN ILLEGAL AGENT CRUELTY. IN A CORPORATION -SOUTH AFRICAN CRIMINALS -ENEMY OF THE MY BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS -AGEISM CRIMINALS -BLACK MAGIC + WITCHCRAFT -LEADING A JAMAICA FRAUD SCHEME, DECARING U.S.

CIVIL UNREST IN AFRICA . -CYBERCRIME -PROFILE A VICTIM AS US TERROR TARGET -AIDING IN HOMICIDE -HOW TO MURDER A SLAVE -BEHAVED LAWSUIT RETROACTIVE -WOULD NOT PROTECT PLAINTIFF -TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS AND COMMITED ILLEGAL PUBLICATION -FALSE GOD OF SKY

-LOST CRIMINAL EMANCIPATION UNDER LINCON -CRIMES AGAINST US and ‘THEM’ NO RIGHTS FOR PRO-EMANCIPATED POST-PROTESTANT SLAVE. -INCITEMENT OF FALSE BLAME AND CONTINUED HATRED -ILLEGAL FBI SPIES -AIDING CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 5 ] After review of the Ms. Dueck’s Statement of Claim, I conclude that Statement of Claim exhibits characteristics of abusive litigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II.

CPN7 [ 6 ] 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 ]. [ 7 ] 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 strike out 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. [ 8 ] 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 of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since 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 ] Ms. Dueck’s Statement of Claim appears to exhibit several issues. A. Inadequate Pleadings [ 10 ] Ms. Dueck’s Statement of Claim appears to be an inadequate pleading.

An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the case it must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co , 2002 SCC 18 at para 87 .

Pleadings: 1. must be more than “bald allegations” ( GH v Alcock , 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58 ) and instead should provide the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability” ( Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) , 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20 ); 2. may be rejected where those claims are absurd and highly implausible since “[a]n extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof” ( Arabi v Alberta , 2014 ABQB 295 at paras 74-77 ; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 40 , leave refused 2014 ABCA 121 ); and 3. cannot be illogical, incomplete, impenetrable, or gibberish, since that means the opposing parties and Court cannot make a meaningful response ( kisikawpimootewin v Canada , 2004 FC 1426 at para 9 ; Arabi v Alberta at paras 82-85 ; Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [ Unrau #2 ]). [ 11 ] Ms.

Dueck’s Statement of Claim speaks for itself. I request Ms. Dueck indicate how her Statement of Claim provide a basis for this Court and the Defendants to make a meaningful response. B. Excessive or Impossible Remedies [ 12 ] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620- 625 . Once again, Ms. Dueck’s Statement of Claim speaks for itself. I therefore request Ms. Dueck indicate how she has not sought excessive or impossible remedies. IV.

CPN7 Conclusion [ 13 ] The Docket 2101 06848 Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore

seeks a response from Ms. Dueck to two questions: 1. How does the Statement of Claim provide a basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2. How are the remedies sought in the Statement of Claim not excessive and/or impossible? [ 14 ] As a result of this analysis, I order that Ms. Dueck’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 06848 Action is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Dueck 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”. 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 Docket 2101 06848 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Dueck provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants 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 Ms. Dueck’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Docket 2101 06848 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 15 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this Action. Ms. Dueck’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 11 th day of June, 2021. J.D.

Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ricki-Lee Gerbrandt for the Defendants Shaw Communications Inc., Brad Shaw, and Rogers Communications Inc.