Wousse v Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre, 2021 ABQB 606

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wousse v Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre, 2021 ABQB 606 Date: 20210803 Docket: 2101 06845 Registry: Calgary Between: Pierre Hournou Wousse and Ellen Tsaeda, Adahnom Plaintiffs - and - Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre and A. Mohamed Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D.

Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On June 21, 2021, Pierre Hournou Wousse and Ellen Tsaeda, Adahnom [the Plaintiffs] filed a Statement of Claim naming the Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre [PLHC] and “A. Mohamed” [Mohamed] as Defendants. The Statement of Claim is handwritten, and difficult to read. As best I can determine, the body of the Statement of Claim is: Statement of facts relied on: March 01/2020/ Mohamed was our tenant at 252, 24 Ave NE Calgary AB

Two months later Mohamed was Evicted due to his mental illeness. Mohamed Keep coming back to threating us. We contacted police toremove him from our house Police officers sent Mohamed to Peter Lougheed Hospital (PLH) As soon policers left (PLH). The [illegible] realised Mohamed! Mohamed came back again to threat us. He took a chair at my house andthrough it on the head of my neighbour’s son. Police [illegible]. Then a Restraining order. We apply for Restraining order on 25 Jun 2020 and we save (1) copy to police and we served the order toMohamed.

(7) Mohamed came back again by broking the order that was severved to him. Police offices told Mohamed he is no longer Welcome inthis House. If he came back again, they sent him to jail.

(8) Since Juil 2020, stopped to see us.

(9) For all those traumatize traumations we are suing (PLH) for $5.000.000-00 Remedy sought:

(1) Mohamed was our tenant at 252, 24 Ave NE Calgary AB.

(2) Mohamed was evicted due to his mental illness

(3) Mohamed keep coming back to threaten us, me and my girlfriend. We contact police officors to remove Mohamed from our house (4) police officers sent Mohamed to (PLH) for a treatment the staff at PLH keep realising Mohamed to come back to threat us. Policeofficer [illegible] to give them a restraining order.

We are suing PLH staff because they do not Folow police instruction and we so far forone year [Sic.] [2] On July 9, 2021, Counsel for PLHC, by letter, referred the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim as a candidate ApparentlyVexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. I am designated to receive andreview potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta.

After review of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, I concluded, in a decisionreported as Wousse v Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre, 2021 ABQB 547 [Wousse #1], that the Statement of Claim exhibited multipleprima facie fatal defects, and therefore should be subject to a document-based show-cause procedure.

The Plaintiffs were asked torespond to three questions in an up to ten-page Written Submission: How is the Statement of Claim not an abuse of the Court because the Statement of Claim: 1. fails to provide adequate particulars so that the Court and Defendants can make a meaningful response, 2 seeks excessive and/or impossible remedies, and 3. is fatally irregular by failing to provide the Plaintiffs’ service information in a manner so prejudicial to the Defendants that theStatement of Claim should be struck out? [Wousse #1 at para 25.] [3] The deadline for the Plaintiffs to make a Written Submission has passed.

No response has been received. I, therefore,conclude that the Plaintiffs have not rebutted the Wousse #1 prima facie conclusion that the Statement of Claim is a hopeless andabusive proceeding. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2101 06845 Statement of Claim is struck out pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) andAlberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68. [4] When an action, application, or claim is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs infavour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g. Ahad v Calgary Housing Company, 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9; Phillipsv Kenney, 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta, 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43; Feeney v Alberta, 2020ABQB 633 at para 6. I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. Taking into account

Schedule C of the Alberta Rulesof Court, and my conclusion that the Plaintiffs frustrated the response of the PLHC and the Court by failing to provide any serviceinformation, I order the Plaintiffs pay PLHC $1,500 in costs, forthwith. [5] Counsel for PLHC shall prepare and file the court Order giving effect to this decision. The Plaintiffs approval of that Order isnot required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

Since the Plaintiffs failed to provide any information to permit service on themselves (seeWousse #1 at paras 3-5, 18-24), notice to the Plaintiffs of this Decision and the corresponding Order will be by publication of thisDecision on the Canadian Legal Information Institute website Wousse #1 at para 28. Dated at Calgary, Alberta this 3rd day of August, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Lauren A. Barteluk Carbert Waite LLP for the Defendant Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre