Laurie v Alberta, 2021 ABQB 741

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Laurie v Alberta, 2021 ABQB 741 Date: 20210917 Docket: 2101 09728 Registry: Calgary Between: Corrinnia M. Laurie Plaintiff - and - Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta, the Attorney General of Canada, College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Dr. Khatereh Mojtahedi Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On August 6, 2021, Corrinnia M. Laurie [Ms.

Laurie] filed a Statement of Claim that names four parties: Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta [Alberta], the Attorney General of Canada [Canada], the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta

[College], and Dr. Khatereh Mojtahedi [Dr. Mojtahedi]. The Statement of Claim states that in 2010 Ms. Laurie underwent spinal surgery, but that Ms. Laurie has allegedly subsequently experienced deteriorating physical conditions that have led to pain, weight gain, numbness, heart issues, diabetes, blood cancer, depression, and anxiety. [ 2 ] Ms. Laurie makes a range of complaints, including those directed against a number of doctors who are not named as parties.

Those allegations include misdiagnosis of medical conditions, failure to provide drugs and treatment, incorrect treatment of a number of conditions, Charter breaches, defamation, discrimination, and unauthorized testing. [ 3 ] The Statement of Claim, at para 7, says that Dr. Mojtahedi, who is identified as Ms. Laurie’s family doctor, breached the Canada Human Rights Act , “Bill 201, (Alberta Patients Bill of Rights)”, and was negligent and provided substandard care.

The care- based allegation references the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta “Standards of Practice” and the “Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics and Professionalism”.

Specific examples listed in the Statement of Claim include: 1. failure to make medical referrals that led to diabetes and kidney damage, 2. being ignored when discussing euthanasia, and 3. issues with pain medication, prescriptions, and addiction. [ 4 ] The only complaint against Canada is that the “2017 Canadian Guideline for Opioids for Non-Cancer Pain”, “... implies discrimination and incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate”. Ms.

Laurie continues that “a direct result” of that document was an unnamed physician discriminated against her and did not prescribe pain medication. [ 5 ] Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim alleges what appears to be tort liability against the College for discrimination, failure to respond to a complaint about a physician who is not a party to this Action, and inadequate training and/or education of Alberta physicians as a whole. [ 6 ] The only point where the Statement of Claim links Alberta to some form of wrongdoing is paragraph 16: Due to discrimination by the Provincial Government and the doctor (Dr Khatereh Mojtahedi) named in statement of claim((breacb of Alberta Human Rights Act, Section 3(1)) based upon my type of pain (spinal)and it not being cancer/or surgery.

Also the refusal to treat, diagnose my health issues/concerns. 10 Million dollars. [ 7 ] In addition to the paragraph 16 damages claim, Ms. Laurie seeks remedies that include: 1. $10 million against Canada for discrimination; 2. $500,000 for Ms.

Laurie being “... [a]ccused of being an addict and alcoholic, and tested without my knowledge ...”; 3. $5 million against the “Doctors in the statement of claim” for diagnostic and medical negligence; 4. $1 million against “[t]he Doctors” for failure to provide alternative treatment, medication, and a referral; 5. $5 million against “[t]he Doctors and Hospitals” for breach of the “Alberta Patients Bill of Rights”; 6. $10 million against the College for failure to properly educate and regulate physicians; 7. $1 million “... to get treatment in the USA”; 8. $10 million from Dr.

Mojtahedi for breach of human rights legislation, the “Alberta Patients Bill of Rights”, and medical negligence; 9. $1 million for mental health therapy for each of Ms. Laurie’s two children; 10. $1 million for “inhome support”; 11. Court-ordered medical treatment, including kidney, heart, and cancer testing, and “... surgery of breasts and tummy tuck to be paid for in Alberta ...”; and 12 $1 million for “healthy food paid by the government”. [ 8 ] Counsel for Alberta, on August 24, 2021, by letter, referred Ms.

Laurie’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. Laurie’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 [ 9 ] 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 ]. [ 10 ] 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 aWritten Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action andshould be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [11] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are “apparenton the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1, at paras 22, 24. Only restricted forms ofevidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates toexamine 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 [12] Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim appears to exhibit a number of issues. A. Hopeless and Premature Litigation [13] Certain aspects of Ms. Laurie’s lawsuit appear to be hopeless and/or premature. 1. The College [14] Ms.

Laurie has sued the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, alleging the College breached its duty of care, tookdiscriminatory steps, and failed to adequately train and inform doctors. The College was authorized and empowered by the HealthProfessions Act, SA 1999, c H-5.5 [HPA].

Section 126 of the HPA states: 126(1) No action lies against any of the following in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith pursuant to this Act,the by-laws or any direction of the council: (

a) a college or a person who is or was an officer, employee or agent of a college; (

b) a person who conducts or has conducted an investigation or an alternative complaint resolution process under

Part 4 or a practicevisit; (

c) the council or a person who is or was a member of a council, committee or hearing tribunal of a college; (

d) a person who acts on the instructions of or under the supervision of a person referred to in clauses (

a) to (c).

(2) No action for defamation may be founded on a communication regarding the conduct of a regulated member if thecommunication is made or is published in accordance with this Act by a college, a person described in subsection (1) or a council,committee or hearing tribunal in good faith and in the course of any proceedings under this Act or the by-laws relating to that conduct. [15] I request Ms. Laurie explain how her claims against the College are not prohibited by HSA s 126. [16] At least one of Ms. Laurie’s allegations are that Ms. Laurie made a complaint to the College about a physician.

The law isclear that it is an abuse of process to pursue judicial proceedings without first exhausting the administrative regime: Al-Ghamdi vAlberta, 2017 ABQB 684 at paras 126-128, aff’d 2020 ABCA 81, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39389 (25 February 2021). If Ms.Laurie disagreed with that result, she appears to have the alternative of a review pursuant to HPA s 68, and then seeking judicial reviewof the College’s actions: e.g. Tran v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2017 ABQB 337, aff’d 2018 ABCA 95. I,therefore, request Ms.

Laurie explain why her complaint against the College is not, in part, an abusive lawsuit initiated prior toexhausting the legislative scheme set by the HPA, and subsequent judicial review. 2. Human and Patients’ Rights Legislation [17] Ms. Laurie frames her litigation in a number of ways, but one point that is clear is that she in many instances identifies certainlegislation (or candidate legislation) as the foundation for the Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing. At paragraph 1, the Statement of Claimframes Ms.

Laurie’s approach this way: The Plaintiff is reliant upon the Alberta Human Rights Act, Section 3(1), 10(a), The Canadian Human Rights Act 1985,c.H-6, 12

a) b).Also the Alberta Patients Bill of Rights Bill 201 1998,

section 2 a), b) 3 a), b), c),

d) and 3 c). [Sic.] [18] The Supreme Court of Canada has determined this and other Canadian courts have no jurisdiction to hear human rightscomplaints: Seneca College v Bhadauria, (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 181, 124 DLR (3d) 19, see also Hamilton v RockyView School Division No 41, 2009 ABQB 225 at paras 23-24, aff’d 2010 ABCA 217, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34151 (18 August2011). I, therefore, request Ms.

Laurie indicate why this jurisprudence is wrong, or should not apply to her lawsuit. [19] Furthermore, as best I can determine, the “Alberta Patients’ Bill of Rights” was an Alberta Legislature private member’s billthat was rejected on February 4, 1998. This candidate legislation does not appear to have any legally binding authority. I request Ms.Laurie explain why that conclusion is in error, and that Mr. Laurie identify the corresponding current enacted and in force Albertalegislation that matches the “Alberta Patients’ Bill of Rights” provisions she relies upon.

3. Busybody and Uninvolved Party Litigation [20] Ms. Laurie appears to seek remedies on behalf of two of her children, who are not named in the Statement of Claim, and arenot parties to this lawsuit. Attempts by third-parties to advance claims on behalf of other persons are “busybody” litigation, a kind ofproceeding with an improper purpose, and an abuse of court processes: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 atpara 664 [Unrau #2]. I, therefore, request that Ms.

Laurie provide an explanation as to why she may advance damages claims on behalfof persons who are not named parties to this litigation. [21] A related issue is that Ms. Laurie appears to be seeking damages from individuals who are not named parties to this lawsuit.For example, Ms. Laurie seeks $5 million in damages from “Hospitals”. No hospitals are Defendants in this lawsuit. [22] Similarly, Ms.

Laurie’s Statement of Claim appears to allege wrongdoing by eleven named and unnamed physicians, and theStatement of Claim demands $11 million from “Doctors”, which implies her lawsuit seeks damages from more than just the one namedDefendant doctor: Dr. Mojtahedi. This implies Ms. Laurie’s lawsuit is directed to obtain damages from people she has not named asparties. I request Ms. Laurie explain how her seeking remedies from persons who are not parties to the Statement of Claim is not anabuse of the Court and its processes, and those targeted individuals. B.

Inadequate Pleadings [23] 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. [24] Ms.

Laurie cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants 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 #2 at para 629. [25] In some instances, Ms. Laurie provides some details to explain the basis for her lawsuit. For example, her claims that involveDr. Mojtahedi sometimes are specific as they identify Ms. Laurie’s circumstances, symptoms, and concerns, and what Ms. Laurie allegesDr. Mojtahedi should have done. However, many other claims are simply bald allegations.

For example, the claims against the Collegeoffer no particulars, not do they identify how the College injured Ms. Laurie. [26] Another example of how Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim does not appear to adequately particularize her allegations is herclaim that Canada published the “2017 Canadian Guideline for Opioids for Non-Cancer Pain” that “... implies discrimination and incitesor is calculated to incite others to discriminate. ...”. How does the document do that? What is the “discrimination” in question?

Ms.Laurie continues that “... as a direct result a Physician discriminated against me and was not willing to prescribe me medication for myspinal pain.” Who was the unnamed doctor? When did that happen? What did the doctor say or do? What did Ms. Laurie seek? Whatshould the doctor have done? Ms. Laurie’s claim does not provide the “who, when, where, how and what” of this allegation, and thesame is true of many other components of the Statement of Claim. [27] This issue also extends to Ms. Laurie’s damages claims.

While she claims many millions of dollars, there is little, to no,explanation of why those sums are warranted. Ms. Laurie demands that someone, perhaps Alberta, provide for breast and “tummy tuck”plastic surgery. No explanation is indicated about why that surgery is justified, or what legal right Ms. Laurie is exercising to obtain thatrelief, particularly on a “human rights” basis. If Ms. Laurie means that she was discriminated against and denied those steps, she does notplead that in her Statement of Claim. [28] I therefore ask Ms.

Laurie to indicate, in detail in each instance, how her Statement of Claim permits a meaningful response bythe Court and the Defendants. C. Excessive and/or Impossible Remedies [29] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. In total, Ms. Laurie seeks $56.5 million in damages, an extremely large sum, particularly in a personal damages action. As I havepreviously indicated, Ms. Laurie provides little to no basis at all to establish the quantum of her claims.

Other times where there is anindication of why an amount is sought, the basis is unconnected with the amount demanded. For instance, Ms. Laurie demands $1million for “healthy food”. I believe I may take judicial notice that $1 million greatly exceeds the cost of purchasing groceries for manyyears. If Ms. Laurie has some exceptional food-related needs, she has provided no facts or alleged facts to substantiate the $1 millionamount. [30] The legal basis for most of Ms. Laurie’s claims is difficult to understand.

She alleges negligence, implying damages for injuryby tort, but also says her human rights were implicated. One fact that does appear clear is that much, if not most, of Ms. Laurie’s $56.5million damages total relates to her discomfort and loss of quality of life. These are “general damages” claims for “pain and suffering”.As far as I can tell, Ms. Laurie makes no economic claims, such as loss of employment income. Instead, at para 7(c)(4), she pleads thatshe receives AISH, because she is unemployable.

[31] The maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed for pain and suffering was set by the Supreme Court ofCanada in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 at $100,000. Afterinflation, the Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd general damages cap is now about $365,000. That amount was for a young adultwhose injuries led to near total disability. Ms. Laurie’s general damages claims greatly exceed that amount. Ms. Laurie pleads severeimpairment, but, at most, that could warrant the maximum $365,000 amount, instead of the tens of millions claimed. [32] Ms.

Laurie also demands certain medical treatment, including cosmetic surgery, paid for by Alberta. That remedy appears tobe outside this Court’s jurisdiction. I have previously identified issues with “busybody” claims, and the Statement of Claim targetingindividuals and entities not named as Defendants. Those are other apparently impossible damages claims. [33] I therefore request Ms. Laurie explain how her Statement of Claim does not seek impossible or excessive remedies. IV. Conclusion [34] Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7.

The Court, therefore, seeks that Ms.Laurie answer how the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court: 1. by making hopeless claims because:

a) potential liability by the College is excluded by legislation,

b) this Court has no jurisdiction to hear human rights claims,

c) the Alberta Patients’ Bill of Rights is not law, and

d) by advancing claims seeking remedies for, or against, third parties to the lawsuit; 2. by not providing a reasonable basis for the Court and Defendants to make a response; and 3. seeking remedies that are impossible or excessive. [35] As a result of this analysis, I order that Ms. Laurie’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 09728 Statement of Claimis stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Laurie 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. Laurie provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each make a Written Reply ofup to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of AssociateChief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms. Laurie’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)). [36] The Court will prepare the Order staying this Action. Ms. Laurie’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 17th day of September, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Gerald Beaudry for the Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta