Kandizi v Edmonton Police Service, 2021 ABQB 690

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Kandizi v Edmonton Police Service, 2021 ABQB 690 Date: 20210831 Docket: 2103 11498 Registry: Edmonton Between: Kumaipurua Bevia Kandizi Plaintiff - and - Edmonton Police Service and Edmonton Police Services Chief Dale McFee Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On August 13, 2021, Kumaipurua Bevia Kandizi (the Plaintiff) filed a two-page handwritten Statement of Claim that names the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) and EPS Chief Dale McFee as Defendants. The Statement of Claim was referred to me by the Clerk of the Court as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5. I

am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. CPN7 is reviewable on-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes. [ 2 ] The body of The Statement of Claim reads: Statement of facts relied on: Death of My unborn babies, 2 of Them, exactly due to Edmonton Police misconduct, Fight with the Mother on Two Different occasions 04 Feb 2021 and on or between April 2020 and August 2020. Human Rights and Freedom Violation Loss of business as a Result of the Illegal Detention. Company Named 061 Transportation Consultants. Inc. Pain and Suffering.

Remedy sought: 4. Five Million ($5000000.00) 5. I Do not Want to have contact with the Edmonton Police Services and or the RCMP Royal Canadian mount Police 6. Protection Against Charges of any sort 7. Help me Save my Family that Remained Alive From Namibia only 25 Members Left alive. [ 3 ] I have reviewed the Statement of Claim and conclude that it is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings.

On that basis, I conclude the Statement of Claim should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . That means I have decided that the Plaintiff must file a Written Submission setting out why the Statement of Claim should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II. CPN7 [ 4 ] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 ( Unrau #1 ). [ 5 ] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out the AVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 6 ] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and must also be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 7 ] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes 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 and 24 . [ 8 ] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because 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 ] The Statement of Claim appears to exhibit several issues. A. Inadequate Pleadings [ 10 ] 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 .

Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “bald allegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock , 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58 ; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) , 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20 .

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 19 , see also Quaye v Law Society of Alberta , 2021 ABCA 167 at para 13 . [ 11 ] The Plaintiff cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants 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 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]. [12] The Statement of Claim appears to not provide adequate pleadings. The mother is not named.

There are no indicationswhatsoever of what the Defendants did that was illegal or wrong. No particulars are alleged of the rights purportedly violated, or thealleged loss of business. The Plaintiff appears to say they have experienced pain and suffering, but provides nothing but that baldallegation. [13] In light of these observations, I request that the Plaintiff indicate how their pleadings provide an adequate basis for the Courtand Defendants to make a meaningful response to their Statement of Claim. B.

Excessive or Impossible Remedies [14] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. The Statement of Claim seeks $5,000,000, but provides no basis at all for that amount. The Plaintiff appears to seek immunity fromany criminal prosecution and that law enforcement actors (including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are not named as a party)are prohibited from engaging in their duties with the Plaintiff. I am unaware of any basis in law for those remedies.

As for the Plaintiff’sclaim about other family members, that remedy appears impossible since the Plaintiff does not provide any information about who thoseindividuals are, where they are located, what actor (government or otherwise) should be instructed to intervene, or the Court’s authorityto mandate such steps. [15] I request the Plaintiff indicate why the remedies sought in the Statement of Claim are not excessive or impossible. IV. Conclusion [16] The Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court requests that thePlaintiff respond to two questions: 1.

How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2. How are the remedies sought in the Statement of Claim not excessive or impossible? [17] CPN7 now advances to its second step. This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearancesor oral argument. The next steps are: 1) The Plaintiff has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as describedin para 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement ofClaim should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If the Plaintiff provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each file and serve a WrittenReply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of AssociateChief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives the Plaintiff’s Written Submission and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will make itsfinal decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (seeCPN7, para 3(e)). [18] Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 2103 11498 Action is stayed until further notice. The Court will prepare andserve an Interim Order staying this action (see CPN7, para 7).

The Plaintiff’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 31st day of August, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

None