Dueck v Calgary (City), 2021 ABQB 510

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dueck v Calgary (City), 2021 ABQB 510 Date: 20210705 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 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. 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 concluded in a decision reported as Dueck v Calgary (City) , 2021 ABQB 455 [ Dueck #1 ] that the Statement of Claim exhibited characteristics of abusive litigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. Ms. Dueck was asked to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission that answered 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? [ Dueck #1 at para 13 .] [ 6 ] The deadline for Ms. Dueck’s Written Submission has passed. Nothing has been received. I, therefore, conclude that Ms. Dueck has not rebutted the Dueck #1 prima facie conclusion that the Docket 2101 06848 Statement of Claim is a hopeless and abusive proceeding. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2101 06848 Statement of Claim struck out pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68. [ 7 ] 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. Given the quantum of damages sought by Ms. Dueck, and Alberta Rules of Court

Schedule C, I order Ms. Dueck pay the Shaw/Rogers Defendants $1,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 8 ] Counsel for the Shaw/Rogers Defendants shall prepare and serve the court Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Dueck’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 5 th day of July, 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.