Singh-Strzelinski v Canada, 2021 ABQB 613

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Singh-Strzelinski v Canada, 2021 ABQB 613 Date: 20210804 Docket: 2001 04910 Registry: Calgary Between: Robert Maximilian Singh-Strzelinski Plaintiff - and - Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On March 31, 2020, Robert Maximilian Singh-Strzelinski [Mr.

Singh-Strzelinski] filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench a Statement of Claim that names “Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada” [Canada] as the Defendant. The body of Mr. Singh- Strezelinski’s Statement of Claim reads:

1. I was unjustly, arrested, Accused and condemned to Eight Years and four months in Panama. After four years of prison I was inform by Vice Consul of Canada Debora Herrera that Justice of Panama lost my Original File and that I'm free to go. I did return to Canada on 18 April 2018.

I accuse Canada Government for; - accessory to false imprisonment; - Accessory to false Accusation; - Accessory to false Condemnation; - Accessory to expose me to eight attempt of murders against me; - Accessory to expose me to many attempts of rape against me; - Accessory to expose me to many attempt of forcible conversion attempts; of money landering - Attempt by Vice Consul of Canada for money laundering; though Polish Government every three months were giving me 100 USD (hundred USD); - Accessory to expose me to starvation; because I'm vegetarian and Panama Justice Penitentiary system do not have vegetarian dieta.

All together in four years and four months i was not eating 365 days ... first time 107 days i was surviving on water, then six times forty days I was protesting each time 40 days, because only during those forty days I felt no poisoned. Authority were mixing pig fat and meat with rice. I do have allergy to meat and on the other hand I'm Sikh. 2. Canada Government for been Accessory to all accusations above broke Human Rights Agreements signed in UN, disrespectful Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation.

Disrespectful The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe,[1] the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. Because I'm Naturalize Canadian and Citizen of Poland - European Union. [Sic.] [ 2 ] On this basis Mr. Singh-Strezelinski seeks: 5. Because of unjustifiable imprisonment I lost my Property, Salaries. all together Lost one million eight thousand Can Dollars.

I request recompense my loses for time been of imprisonment, for time after obtaining freedom, because up to now I'm not able to begin my work as Owner Operator of my business Princess Strzelinski Transport INC. Registry Alberta and Ontario causing me problem to renew my professional Permit. 6. If Canada Government will not comply with satisfying judgment I will open Court Case at Strasbourg International Tribunal of Human Rights in Germany or Affiliated with Authority. [Sic.] [ 3 ] Counsel for the Department of Justice, which is representing the Defendant Canada, on March 23, 2021, by letter, referred Mr.

Singh-Strzelinski’s Statement of Claim 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.

Canada takes the position that the Statement of Claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, indicating deficiencies that include the Statement of Claim: 1. makes broad, bald allegations that do not establish a legal basis for a claim, such as a duty of care, 2. makes Charter allegations without supporting particulars, and 3. relies on irrelevant authorities, such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

[4] After review of Mr. Singh-Strzelinski’s Statement of Claim, I conclude that pleading exhibits characteristics of abusivelitigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II. CPN7 [5] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has noprospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effectiveresponse to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874 [Unrau #1]. [6] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwiseabusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to applyRule 3.68 and strike out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Courtwith a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimateaction and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [7] 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 restrictedforms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operatesto 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 thesuspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that hasalready been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III CPN7 Analysis [8] The Statement of Claim appears to provide inadequate pleadings. An application or statement of claim sets the issues towhich the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the case it must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 atpara 87.

Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “bald allegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20. Pleadings must provide a basis for theCourt and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and whatgave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 19.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Mackay vManitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485, instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factualfoundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potential Charter relief. [9] Mr. Singh-Strzelinski cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendant to“fill in the blanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20.

A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect,but goes to the 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 arespondent cannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposedargument, or make findings on the relevant facts: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. [10] The Statement of Claim does not appear to meet the required threshold to provide adequate alleged facts and claims. Thatsaid, the Statement of Claim provides some basic narrative to Mr. Singh-Strzelinski’s allegations.

He was imprisoned in Panama, andlists a range of complaints that appear to be directed against the “Panama Justice Penitentiary system”. He calls the “CanadianGovernment” an “accessory” to that. However, Mr. Singh-Strzelinski provides no basis at all for why Canada is implicated in the allegedactions of a foreign government and its prison apparatus. Calling Canada an “accessory” implies that Canada had authority over Mr.Singh-Strzelinski and in relation to his detention. How that occurred is not indicated. [11] What are “Human Rights Agreements signed in UN?” How were those “broke”?

What does it mean that Canada wasallegedly “disrespectful” of the Charter? What did Canada do, or not do? How did Canada have a legally binding obligation to Mr.Singh-Strzelinski that is enforceable in this Court? The alleged misconduct, to the degree that it is identified, occurred in Panama. Whyis the European Convention on Human Rights relevant to Canada, when Mr. Singh-Strzelinski pleads that treaty protects “... humanrights and political freedoms in Europe. ...” [emphasis added]. [12] Similarly, the most specific allegation by Mr. Singh-Strzelinski is “money laundering” by the Vice Consul of Canada.

Whatdoes this mean? Mr. Singh-Strzelinski says money was being supplied by the Polish government. Why? What happened to the money?When did this occur? Did Mr. Singh-Strzelinski receive this money or not? Or should the money have been directed somewhere, or tosomeone else? [13] Mr. Singh-Strzelinski seeks somewhat over $1 million in damages and, again, provides some particulars. He indicates he lost“Property” and “Salaries”, but does not identify either. These are therefore bald allegations. Mr. Singh-Strzelinski also complains he hasbeen unable to renew a “professional Permit” administered by Alberta and Ontario.

The Statement of Claim provides no explanation ofwhy Canada should be penalized for issues with two provincial governments and their agencies. [14] I therefore request that Mr. Singh-Strzelinski explain how the Statement of Claim provides a basis for the Court andDefendant Canada to make a meaningful response. IV. Conclusion

[ 15 ] Mr. Singh-Strzelinski’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks that Mr. Singh-Strzelinski indicate how the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court, because the Statement of Claim fails to provide adequate particulars so that the Court and Defendant can make a meaningful response? [ 16 ] As a result of this analysis, I order that Mr. Singh-Strzelinski’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 04910 Statement of Claim is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Mr.

Singh-Strzelinski 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 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr.

Singh-Strzelinski provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendant has seven days to make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Mr. Singh-Strzelinski’s Written Submission, and the Defendant’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Docket 2101 04910 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 17 ] The Court will prepare the Order staying this Action.

The Plaintiffs’ approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4 th day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Tessa la Bastida Prairie Region National Litigation Sector Department of Justice Canada for the Defendant Canada