Roy v Roy, 2021 ABQB 711

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Roy v Roy, 2021 ABQB 711 Date: 20210907 Docket: 2101 10345 Registry: Calgary Between: Karen Henderson Roy AKA Smart Plaintiff - and - Douglas Roy Incarcerated, Lisa Conner, FOiP, Jared Wiebe, Family Services, Miles Davison, Leanne Salel OPiC Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On August 23, 2021, Karen Henderson Roy “AKA Smart” [Ms.

Roy] filed a Statement of Claim with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that seems to name eight Defendants. The Style of Cause above reproduces the parties as named in the Statement of Claim. Ms. Roy’s Statement of Claim is something of an assemblage. Its first and last pages are handwritten. In between are 17

typewritten pages. [ 2 ] The resulting document is difficult to summarize. The first page’s handwritten content reads: Complete System Failer All This Maddness only because ALL I wanted in 2016 was my child [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 3 ] What follows is, in certain ways, a somewhat chronological narrative about Ms. Roy and her past. She introduces that three “Chapter” record this way: 40 years of this history of following, harassing, done with intentions to destroy my self and now my son. The attack, torcher, torcher, attack, through

Chapter 1,

chapter 2 and exhibits of

Chapter 3. With what is now 5 years ½ a decade continuing this pattern of behavior on to my child. Watching this, knowing about this and doing nothing to correct or solve or even an attempt to resolve these matters. For only to continue to do everything this system can to cover it up, convoluted it, ignore it, makes matters even worse. The abuse of power, committing perjury in the courts and collaborating with massive criminals is disgusting. What makes matters worse is that this has been a well thought out plan.

Taking the justice system into their own hands fabricating a bunch of untruthful, harming, destroying information. Then following through with it and continuing with these untruthful accusations and making this a publicly posted knowledge. Then continue to do nothing by keeping myself locked up in a truck for over 465 Plus days, having no support and continuing to further take away form me. With all hopes that I will just go away or even just die. [Sic.] [ 4 ] While the narrative is sometimes difficult to understand, it appears Ms.

Roy has several children, and at one point lived what she calls “a very luxury’s lifestyle” [sic]. She mentions working in what she describes as a “Dream job”. Her circumstances subsequently became much worse: “I am a dam great mother. Where now living out of my truck.” [sic]. [ 5 ] Other times what the narrative describes is alarming: being beaten, raped, strangled, and tortured with battery shocks, “being adopted 22 times dragged though this system”. Ms. Roy complains about mental abuse and “brain washing” from her ex-husband Doug Roy.

She describes custody disputes over a son, and interventions by “family services”. Ms. Roy claims she made complaints to “family services”, and the Law Society of Alberta concerning several lawyers, but nothing happened. Her “ex’s” wanted her dead, so she stayed in “Shelters”. [ 6 ] After that, in 2018, the situation improved. Ms. Roy rented a basement suite in Calgary. However, Ms. Roy reports unknown persons were clandestinely entering her residence, which was harassment. Ms. Roy reported to the Calgary Police Service that “... my child was in further danger being inapprotialy touched. ...” [sic]. Ms.

Roy again ended up in “shelters”, and applied for government Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped [AISH] assistance, which was approved in June 2019. [ 7 ] Ms. Roy indicates that between 2019 and the present she moved frequently. She first stayed in a campground trailer. She made complaints about public safety, police, and AISH that were ignored. After some travel, Ms. Roy says she had to live out of a jeep in Edmonton, but she did not have bad experiences in that City. Ms. Roy describes activities and incidents in Edmonton that are difficult to understand. In spring of 2020, Ms.

Roy says she was stranded in a trailer in a Cochrane movie parking lot. AISH failed to support her. Then Ms. Roy travelled to Vancouver, and Salmon Arm, and was “... stuck in a Walmart parking lot ...”. She then resided with her mother, but that was “terrible”, since Ms. Roy was “adopted 22 Times and again the system did nothing. ...”. Ms. Roy relocated to a trailer park, but reports people there harassed her and entered into her trailer without permission. She was evicted, and ended up living in her truck, which caused “heart issues, stress issues.” Ms.

Roy alleges that was the government’s plan, and “Shelly, the Manager of Aish fully admits that” [sic]. Attempts by Ms. Roy to use court and government services were unsatisfactory. She calls Jason Kenney’s office daily. People hang up or do not return her calls. [ 8 ] Ms. Roy says that recently she has reported to police and “emergency lines” that her child is missing, a “ very large issue ” [emphasis in original]. She wrote a letter “... on 2 pieces of wood so this wouldn’t be lost. ...”. Ms. Roy’s attempts to use court processes led to a “pone call Red Deer provincial courts ...

Higley illegal ...” [sic, emphasis in original]. A court appearance on June 2, 2021 “... resolved nothing as it broke my heart and further perjury was committed.” [sic]. [ 9 ] Other claims found in the Statement of Claim are difficult to understand, or extraordinary. The Statement of Claim alleges that Ms. Roy’s “eggs” were harvested for “serigate mothers and switching my children out.” [sic]. Politicians feature in certain of Ms. Roy’s allegations. She appears to claim a video recording exists of her and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that is “child prognaphy” [sic], and Ms. Roy was the child. Ms.

Roy states the current and former Alberta Premiers Notley and Kenney know about and have watched this video. [ 10 ] Ms. Roy reports repeated involvement and interactions with Premier Jason Kenney. She says he knew about the “torcher” she experienced, which “... is disgusting.” She reports Premier Kenney in December 2019 was at her son’s high school, for no apparent reason. Shortly afterwards, she saw Premier Kenney in an airport. Ms. Roy then flew to Toronto, but felt unsafe there, since: ... there were some Brown people there that were in the arrivals area, not doing anything and not picking anyone up.

It didn’t seem right and suspicious. ... I booked the next flight out to Calgary the very next day. Shortly after the Toronto incident, Ms. Roy reports she was at a pub in Calgary, where she encountered Jason Kenney dressed as an elf. In mid-2020, Ms. Roy claims Premier Kenney “... was for some reason ...” staying in the trailer park where Ms. Roy was located. [ 11 ] The typed component of the Statement of Claim ends with: Conclusion:

• Complete system failed • Convoluted cover up • Corruption • Complete disrespect of the Honorable court system • Lies, deceit, failed to put people 1 st • Breaking laws with intent, and knowing you doing it • Attack to 1 person and well planed • Torcher, and even further torcher is

an act of terrisum • Taking the justice system into your own hands • Committing purjery • Failed to fix, solve, act but continue to punish Violation: • Violation of the freedom of information act. • Violation of the family child youth enhancement act • Violation of Human Right Act • Violation of all legistration • Violation of everything our Country stands for [Sic.] [ 12 ] Ms.

Roy seeks as remedies (handwritten): SEVeRioSIS, Sever Damages with Intent to Destroy myself and my child The TRuth Accountability [Sic.] [ 13 ] Counsel for Defendants Jared Wiebe and Miles Davison on September 1, 2021, by letter, referred Ms. Roy’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. After review of Ms.

Roy’s Statement of Claim, I conclude that pleading exhibits characteristics of abusive litigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II. CPN7 [ 14 ] 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 ]. [ 15 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strike out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Court with a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 16 ] 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 restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since 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 CPN7 Analysis [17] The Statement of Claim appears to provide inadequate pleadings. An application or statement of claim sets the issues to whichthe 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 para58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20.

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court andother litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave riseto its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) 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 anabsolute requirement for pleadings that seek potential Charter relief. [18] Ms.

Roy cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendant 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]. [19] Most of what Ms. Roy alleges are bald allegations. For example, she seems to allege that someone harvested ova from her, andthat was for in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy. Who did this is not indicated, nor is timing and the circumstances of this allegedwrongdoing identified.

Is this relevant to one or more of the Defendants? Part of a broader narrative? What remedy should flow from thisalleged incident or incidents? What does “switching my children out” mean? Is Ms. Roy saying one or more of her children are not hers,biologically? [20] Another way to illustrate this issue is to review allegations against the named Defendants. Her ex-husband Douglas (Doug)Roy apparently has custody of Ms. Roy’s son. She says Douglas Roy and his lawyer, Jared Wiebe, have done things wrongly or unfairlyin custody and/or access proceedings.

The allegations in question provide no particulars, or how the Court should respond to those. LisaConner is identified as a “Family Services” manager. Ms. Roy make no discernable complain against her. [21] I am presuming “FOiP” refers to the Alberta Services “Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy” administration(FOIP). No allegations are made against that organization, or how some response or obligation made under the Freedom of Informationand Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c F.31 was improper. “OPiC” probably means the Office of the Information and PrivacyCommissioner of Alberta.

All that is disclosed in the Statement of Claim about “OPic” is that Ms. Roy sent in a report, and received anunsatisfactory response: “they just want to cover up, and convolute things even more”. Defendant Leanne Salel seems to be related to the“OPiC” matter(s), but in no specific way. [22] Ms. Roy clearly takes a highly negative opinion of “Family Services”, but, beyond that, “Family Services” has been involvedin custody of her son, what “Family Services” did wrong is not identified, except that “Family Services” accepted “fabricated garbage”from “65 people including the mayor of Chestermere”, that Ms.

Roy was a prostitute, drug addict, and unfit mother. [23] The Statement of Claim makes no mention at all, about the Miles Davison LLP law firm. [24] Similarly, the “violations” are entirely unparticularized, and not linked to the main body of the Statement of Claim. Theremedies are also non-specific, and at least in certain senses are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. [25] I therefore ask Ms. Roy to indicate how her Statement of Claim permits a meaningful response by the Court and theDefendants. IV. Conclusion [26] Ms. Roy’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7.

The Court, therefore, seeks that Ms.Roy indicate how the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court, because the Statement of Claim fails to provide adequateparticulars so that the Court and Defendants can make a meaningful response. [27] As a result of this analysis, I order that Ms. Roy’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 10345 Statement of Claim isstayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Roy 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 whetherthe Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Roy provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each make a Written Reply of upto a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate ChiefJustice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms. Roy’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its finaldecision on whether the Docket 2101 10345 Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7,para 3(e)).

[ 28 ] The Court will prepare the Order staying this Action. Ms. Roy’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the Interim Stay Order shall be served on Ms. Roy by the email address identified in her Statement of Claim: 123karenoffreedom@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 7 th day of September, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Sean T. Fitzgerald for the Defendants Jared Wiebe and Miles Davison LLP.