Kandizi v Edmonton Police Service, 2021 ABQB 748

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Kandizi v Edmonton Police Service, 2021 ABQB 748 Date: 20210920 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 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. [ 2 ] The body of Mr. Kandizi’s 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 reviewed the Statement of Claim, and, in a decision reported as Kandizi v Edmonton Police Service , 2021 ABQB 690 ( Kandizi #1 ) , concluded that the Statement of Claim is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I concluded 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 . Mr.

Kandizi was asked to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission that responded 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? ( Kandizi #1 at para 16 .) [ 4 ] The deadline for Mr. Kandizi’s Written Submission has passed. Nothing has been received from Mr. Kandizi. I, therefore, conclude Mr. Kandizi has not rebutted the fatal defects identified in Kandizi #1 .

Pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court and CPN7, para 3(c), the Statement of Claim in Action No. 2103 11498 is struck out as an abuse of the Court. [ 5 ] No costs flow from this outcome since this Court does not usually order costs when the Clerk of the Court refers an AVAP pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 565 at para 6 . [ 6 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Kandizi’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta thi s 20 th day of September, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None