Boland v Benke, 2021 ABQB 78

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Boland v Benke, 2021 ABQB 78 Date: 20210201 Docket: 2003 13342 Registry: Edmonton Between: Paulus Henrikus Boland Plaintiff - and - Adam Benke (Re/max elite brokerage) Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On August 27, 2020, Paulus Henrikus Boland (Mr. Boland) filed a Statement of Claim naming “Adam Benke (Re/Max elite brokerage)” (Mr. Benke) as the Defendant. The entire body of the Statement of Claim reads: Statement of facts relied on: l. Paulus’s House was sold in April 2018

2. Mr. Banke was the real estate brokerage, he received a gross amount of 16150.00$ commission for his role. 3. The contract and sale agreement terms were breached. 4. The sale went through with out a legal amendment being signed. Mr. Banke was the individual who had sent the final amendment to be authorized. 5. The amendment remained unsigned, the sale was pushed through. Mr. Banke was the "false" witness to the illegal transaction 6. He collected the remaining amount of his commission in the amount of 6957.50 from the proceeds from the unauthorized transaction.

Knowing that the amendment he sent was never signed and approved. As a result of this breach of duty, negligence, and breach of contract Paulus became homeless and suffered astonishing medical distress. 7. Paulus did not touch the proceeds from this illegal sale until 2020 in an attempt to demonstrate He never agreed to the sale. The pandemic and the consequences (incarceration) of becoming homelessness effected his ability to seek prompt “justice” Remedy sought 8. 1000000.07 for emotional and medical distress suffered as a result of an unauthorized real estate sale. (Sic.) [ 2 ] Counsel for Mr.

Benke on December 12, 2020 by letter referred Mr. Boland’s Statement of Claim to me as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. I reviewed the Statement of Claim and in a decision reported as Boland v Benke , 2021 ABQB 27 ( Boland #1 ) concluded that Mr. Boland’s Statement of Claim was an AVAP because it contained elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. [ 3 ] I therefore stayed Mr.

Boland’s lawsuit on an interim basis, and requested Mr. Boland provide to the Court a Written Submission of up to ten pages that responded to two questions: 1) How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response? 2) How does the Statement of Claim not seek disproportionate or impossible remedies? ( Boland #1 at para 17 .) [ 4 ] The deadline for Mr. Boland’s Written Submission was January 26, 2021. Mr. Boland did not submit a Written Submission by that date. Instead, Mr.

Boland has sent the Court numerous emails that were non-responsive to the two Boland #1 questions, and often included obscenities and insults. These emails do not constitute a Written Submission that rebuts the prima facie defects identified in Boland #1 . [ 5 ] One email, dated January 26, 2021, mentions a “notification letter”: To Justice Nielsen. I handed you a notification letter on the 15th of this month I gave you 10 days to reply you did not reply there for you f****** lose I will get back to you sir.

PAULUS.H (Sic.) A subsequent email indicates the “notification letter” was “dropped” with the “criminal counter”. [ 6 ] My office has not received any “notification letter”. The Court’s docket record does not record any new documents filed in this Action. Even if Mr. Boland has submitted some form of document to the Court, it is clear from Mr.

Boland’s email that this was not a Written Submission, but instead what is commonly called a foisted unilateral agreement: a legally meaningless document where a failure to respond by a deadline is said to have binding effects: Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 447-528 . [ 7 ] I conclude that Mr. Boland has not responded to Boland #1 and rebutted the prima facie defects identified in that decision. I therefore strike out his Statement of Claim pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . [ 8 ] The usual practice of this Court is that, when an action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the Court awards costs in favour of the litigant or litigants who referred the matter to the Court: e.g. Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9 ; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta , 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43 . In light of the quantum of damages indicated in Mr. Boland’s Statement of Claim, I order that Mr. Boland pay to the Defendant $1,500 in costs. [ 9 ] Counsel for Mr.

Benke is instructed to prepare the draft Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Boland’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Mr. Boland may be served with this Memorandum of Decision and the corresponding Order by the email address indicated in the Statement of Claim. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 1 st day of February, 2021.

K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Paulus Henrikus Boland Self-Represented Litigant Kyle C McKinney Veria Law for the Defendant