Lachance v Lachance, 2021 ABQB 722

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Lachance v Lachance, 2021 ABQB 722 Date: 20210909 Docket: 2103 01563, 2103 01564 Registry: Edmonton Between: Docket: 2103 01563 Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance Plaintiffs - and - Nicole Lachance Defendant And between: Docket: 2103 01564 Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance Plaintiffs - and - Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce Defendants

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On August 24, 2021, Counsel for Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce, Q.C., referred to the Court three proceedings as candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (AVAPs), pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. Two candidate AVAPs are Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta lawsuits. The third matter is a Civil Claim filed in the Provincial Court of Alberta (docket number 2190300423) on February 3, 2021.

All three matters involve common parties. All involved litigants are represented by counsel. I have received and examined the three proceeding referrals since I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 2 ] The CPN7 referrals were accompanied by extensive materials, which is an exceptional circumstance in a CPN7 review. CPN7 is a mechanism to conduct a r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 process.

Rule 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court excludes evidence concerning the merit of a proceeding, and CPN7 has a very narrow focus and examines a single document and its content, with very limited exceptions: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 . [ 3 ] On August 30, 2021, I wrote to Counsel for Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance, requesting Counsel “... provide the position on behalf of ...” his clients in relation to the CPN7 referral. Counsel for Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance responded by letter on August 31, 2021.

That letter disputed how Counsel for Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce, Q.C. characterized the three lawsuits referred for CPN7 review. The letter also attached extensive materials.

The August 31, 2021 correspondence from Counsel for Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance concluded: For all these reasons, it is our submission that it is inappropriate to have Francesca Lachance and Arthur Lachance deemed vexatious litigants. ... [ 4 ] Subsequently, on September 7, 2021, I received a further letter from Counsel for Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce, Q.C. that attached a June 10, 2020 letter from Counsel for Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance. [ 5 ] I conclude this CPN7 referral should be rejected.

First, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has no jurisdiction to conduct a CPN7 review of a matter underway before the Provincial Court of Alberta. If Nicole Lachance disputes the validity of the Provincial Court of Alberta proceeding, she should make an application in that Court. [ 6 ] Second, the other two Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta matters referred are not suitable for CPN7 review, particularly given the claims by Counsel for Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce, Q.C., that these matters are collateral attacks, and the documentation provided that allegedly is proof of that.

I stress the high threshold required for CPN7 identified by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 at paras 22 , 24. 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”. [ 7 ] To be explicit, my rejection of these CPN7 referrals does not mean this Court has made any findings of fact and/or law as to the potential merit of the two referred Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta proceedings.

This decision, and its conclusions, are therefore irrelevant to any potential future applications pursuant to rr 3.68 or 7.2-7.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court , or other litigation steps, by Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce, Q.C., in relation to the two referred Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta matters. [ 8 ] No costs result from this Memorandum of Decision. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta thi s 9 th day of September, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances:

Daniel C.P. Stachnik, Q.C. for Nicole Lachance and Roberto Noce, Q.C. Murray Engelking Engelking Law Barristers and Solicitors for Arthur Lachance and Francesca Lachance