Pascal v Trudeau, 2021 ABQB 69

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Pascal v Trudeau, 2021 ABQB 69 Date: 20210127 Docket: 2101 00179 Registry: Calgary Between: Liliana Pascal Plaintiff - and - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Mr. Trudeau - Prime Minister of Canada) Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On January 8, 2021, Liliana Pascal [Ms.

Pascal] filed a Statement of Claim with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that names “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Mr. Trudeau - Prime Minister of Canada)” as the Defendant(s). Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim makes clear this lawsuit is directed against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau [Prime Minister Trudeau], personally:

... Dear Justin Trudeau do not blame your subordinates, A fish always rots from the head down and not from the tail up. This country has to start with you, in order to see the best country to live. Where there's a will there's a way - You never had a will to make a better way for immigrants, for this country it was a will for yourself. [Sic.] [ 2 ] The Statement of Claim then continues to advance a range of complaints, including: 1. A wide range of allegations and claims that Canadians and Canadian governments mistreat immigrants. 2.

Canadian immigration policy brings in unproductive “lazy people” who do not work, which leads to broad-based hostility to immigrants. Canadian immigration policies also lead to criminals being admitted into Canada: ... Your incredible immigration system allows criminals come, people that looking to rape white women, the black men (they were two or 3 in the car drank) told me that we are their prostitutes and they will f.. us as much as they like, not to f.. with white guys till they don’t f... us, so you got amazing immigration system Mr. Trudea[u]. [Sic.] 3.

Canadian governments provide inadequate social support, such as inadequate mental health, dental, and housing care. Canadian governments discriminate against traumatized people. State and police officials are disrespectful and abusive. 4. Ms. Pascal delivered a child in 2012. Ms. Pascal alleges that she and the child received inadequate medical care. The child was injured in the process. 5. Ms. Pascal has a post-secondary education, but as an immigrant she has been unable to apply that education “... when that is a pure stupidity.” 6. Ms.

Pascal enrolled in courses at CDI College, which she says did not provide her with an appropriate education. 7. COVID-19 was known from 1990, and Prime Minister Trudeau “... made up this nonsense.” 8. Prime Minister Trudeau hates Albertans, including Ms. Pascal, and that is why she has been treated badly: ... Don’t say it is not true- I will not believe you!!

If you didn’t discriminate me based on Province I am, you would’ve reply and look to help me, but you didn’t care. [Sic.] [ 3 ] The Statement of Claim concludes: Conclusion : I would never said anything to you, or anyone, if I was respected as a human in this country, If I was allowed work as a teacher as based on my education and experience I immigrated here, if I was allowed have the baby when I told the doctor that I must have, If my son was healthy and I could go to work to make my own living, if there was special daycares that worked with children with disabilities without traumatize the children, abuse, and hurt and such daycares were approved by Government and checked every week to make sure that employees are not abusers but honest employees, I would never care to say something if doctors monitored my life honestly, told the truth and not hidden from me, If you provided a better economy so at least I ca[n] have more options to make a living.

I would not bother even remember your name if everything was much better. But you Mr. Trudeau created all that, every new Government should improve things but not destroy and fight for seats after 4 years again. Due to Government poor attitude I suffered serious trauma, being cut like an animal. Being sent home and refused to have my baby. Being drugged against my will. Being forced to suffer to the extent to beg for death. The trauma and stress hurt me immensely, hurt my child.

Such pain will never go away, such memories will die when I will die, but I will make sure to write books and send everywhere in this world, so people can read and see how immigrants were treated even in 2020. For my pain no money, no excuses will ever wipe away. Such pain are like the pain of our grandparents that went tru to first war, second war, starvation. When you bring immigrants here, you make sure to bring and kindness, care, support.

If you know that our education is not accepted here, you should never ask us any proof of education or work experience and bring all immigrants equally, but not make us waste lots of money so in the end continue to be mocked and live lonely in this country and getting insane student loan debts. All that is your fault as a dishonest Government. I am disappointed that during this covid I was left with nothing- not enough that I was not able to work and make income for all these years, but even forced to survive on air all these Covid months.

That is my unique statement provided, there is no need to uncover the pain I went thru, I do want to live but not to suffer. I suffered enough, go ahead and suffer you and suffer the way I suffered and come back and tell how it is and see the damages requested will ever cover at least 1% from everything you went thru. The fish rots from the head down-so this country goes wrong from the upper government. [Emphasis in original, sic.] [ 4 ] Ms.

Pascal seeks $150,000 in “[p]unitive and exemplary damages”, $600,000 in general damages, interest, and costs. [ 5 ] I am designated to receive and review potential Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs]. I was referred Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5, and, after review of the Statement of Claim, I conclude Ms. Pascal’s lawsuit exhibits multiple potential issues that warrant a document-based CPN7 “show cause” 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 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 strikes out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide theCourt 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. [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 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 #2 at paras 24-48. There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court mayexamine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and recordsthat 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. CPN7 Analysis [9] Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim exhibits a number of potential issues. A. No Allegations Against Prime Minister Trudeau [10] I have carefully reviewed Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim. Though Ms. Pascal has many complaints about her experiences inCanada, I have not located any instance where Ms.

Pascal describes or identifies an action, or inaction, by Prime Minister Trudeau,personally, that is a basis for Prime Minister Trudeau’s liability. For example, there are no allegations of a contractual relationship withPrime Minister Trudeau, that Prime Minister Trudeau was involved in Ms. Pascal’s medical treatment, or that Prime Minister Trudeauhad some relationship with Ms. Pascal, personally, that would establish a duty of care. [11] Instead, Ms. Pascal is very direct. “The fish rots from the head.” Although Ms. Pascal makes many complaints about theCanadian immigration system and governments, Ms.

Pascal frames her lawsuit as an action against the Prime Minister as the FirstMinister of the nation. Ms. Pascal appears to say Prime Minister Trudeau is personally responsible for any unfavourable outcome thatresulted from Ms. Pascal’s interactions with government, medical services, police, CDI College, and the Canadian public as a whole. [12] I therefore request that Ms. Pascal identify a legal basis for how Prime Minister Trudeau is personally liable to her in law. B.

Inadequate Pleadings [13] An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the caseit must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87. Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “baldallegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA227 at paras 16-20.

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to theresponding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19. The Supreme Court of Canada in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th)485, instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potentialCharter relief. [14] Ms.

Pascal cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Respondents 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] [15] Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim includes many allegations that do not appear to provide adequate particulars. For example, onseveral occasions Ms. Pascal mentioned “negligence”, but sometimes that relates to doctors, or somehow because Ms.

Pascal’s ex-husband must work, or that Minister Patty Hadju had failed Ms. Pascal: “You should use every tool to punish yourself for negligentlyignoring my pain and trauma!!” Ms. Pascal does not identify how Prime Minister Trudeau, personally, has a duty of care, or the basis forthat, or a breach of fiduciary duty. [16] Many of Ms. Pascal’s complaints are global, and relate to immigrants in general, rather than herself. As previously indicated,Ms. Pascal does not link Prime Minister Trudeau to the alleged misconduct.

How does that establish a basis for Prime Minister Trudeauto respond to allegations he is legally liable to Ms. Pascal? [17] I conclude Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim does not appear to provide adequate specific pleadings so that the Court andDefendant may make a meaningful response. This is a second independent question on which I request Ms. Pascal explain why herStatement of Claim is a valid action. C. Impossible or Excessive Remedies [18] Ms. Pascal seeks damages $600,000 in general damages.

The maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed forpain and suffering was set in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 at

$100,000. That was for a young adult whose injuries led to near total disability. After inflation, the Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd general damages cap is now about $365,000. Ms. Pascal’s claim is nearly twice the maximum permitted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and, from my review of the pleadings, Ms. Pascal provides no indication of negative effects that would warrant a maximum general damages cap award, such as general physical impairment or near complete neural dysfunction. [ 19 ] Despite her wide-ranging complaints, Ms.

Pascal does not particularize why she is due $150,000 in punitive and exemplary damages from Prime Minister Trudeau, personally. [ 20 ] Impossible or disproportionate claims are a characteristic of a hopeless action that warrants a lawsuit being terminated as an abuse of court processes: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625 . I therefore conclude that Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim may be an abusive proceeding because of the damages that she has claimed. D.

Proceedings with an Improper Purpose [ 21 ] In Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) , 2018 ONCA 32 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38057 (1 November 2018), the Court indicated at paras 23-24 that litigation seeking “... the acknowledgement and correction of perceived government shortcomings, as distinct from asserting a right recognized at law...” is a “... [hallmark] of vexatious proceedings, and a vexatious litigant.”, see also Unrau #2 at para 658 . [ 22 ] Ms. Pascal’s litigation appears to be a proceeding for an improper purpose. Ms.

Pascal is forthright: she rejects many aspects of Canadian government policy, for example in relation to immigration, health care, inter-governmental relations, and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She blames the Prime Minister for that. “All that is your fault as a dishonest Government.” As I have previously indicated, Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim does not seem to identify any actual basis for a remedy against Prime Minister Trudeau personally. [ 23 ] This is a fourth basis on which I conclude Ms. Pascal’s Statement of Claim may be an abuse of court, and, therefore, should be reviewed pursuant to CPN7.

IV. CPN7 Analysis [ 24 ] Ms. Pascal’s January 8, 2021 Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks a response from Ms. Pascal on these questions: 1. How in law is Prime Minister Trudeau personally liable to Ms. Pascal? 2. How does the January 8, 2020 Statement of Claim provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Prime Minister Trudeau personally? 3. Why are damages claimed in the Statement of Claim not impossible or excessive? 4.

How does the Statement of Claim assert a right recognized in law, rather than seek acknowledgement and correction of perceived shortcomings of Canadian governments? [ 25 ] Ms. Pascal’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 2101 00179 lawsuit is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Pascal 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 Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Pascal 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 Ms.

Pascal’s Written Submission, and the Defendant’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action 2101 00179 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 26 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action. Ms. Pascal’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Ms. Pascal may be served this decision and the interim stay Order by email to the address on her Statement of Claim: “courtcase2019@yahoo.com”. [ 27 ] I further note that if Ms.

Pascal has a judicable claim against Canada, or Alberta, or against medical professionals and institutions, then the proper way to make those claims is to litigate against the particular agent that Ms. Pascal believes has harmed her. Any such potential action may be restricted by factors such limitations periods, for example as defined in the Limitations Act , RSA 2000, c L-12 , or by common law prohibitions against allegations of negligence flowing from policy decisions: Cooper v Hobart , 2001 SCC 79 .

The proper defendant in those matters is the government or government actors in question, not the person, such as Prime Minister Trudeau, who leads that government.

Dated at Calgary, Alberta this 27 th day of January, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None