Roy v Roy, 2021 ABQB 788

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Roy v Roy, 2021 ABQB 788 Date: 20211001 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 ] Counsel for two 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 concluded in a decision reported as Roy v Roy , 2021 ABQB 711 [ Roy #1 ] that Ms. Roy’s Statement of Claim exhibited prima facie and apparently fatal defects.

On that basis I ordered a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. [ 3 ] In Roy #1 at paras 2-12 , I attempted to summarize Ms. Roy’s Statement of Claim. That document is difficult to describe. Given Ms. Roy’s CPN7 correspondence in response to Roy #1 , I reproduce that

summary to provide a background and context for the analysis that follows: [2] ... 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 are 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. [ 4 ] 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.] [ 5 ] Ms. Roy seeks as remedies (handwritten): SEVeRioSIS, Sever Damages with Intent to Destroy myself and my child The TRuth Accountability [Sic.] [ 6 ] In Roy #1 , at para 26 , I requested that Ms.

Roy submit an up to ten-page Written Submission that indicated how her Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court, because the Statement of Claim appeared to fail to provide adequate particulars so that the Court and Defendants can make a meaningful response. A ten-page document was received from Ms. Roy on September 15, 2021. On September 20, 2021, my office received a series of emails from Ms. Roy, including a replacement for page 5 of the September 15, 2021 document. One September 20, 2021 email from Ms. Roy reported steps she had taken to serve the named Defendants.

A Written Reply was received from Counsel for Defendant Leanne Salel [Ms. Salel] and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner [OIPC] on September 15, 2021. II. Analysis [ 7 ] The central issue is whether Ms. Roy has rebutted the Roy #1 conclusion that Ms. Roy’s Statement of Claim does not provide alleged facts and other information, “particulars”, that permit the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response. Roy #1 at paras 17-18 reviewed the relevant law, and paras 19-24 identified examples of that defect. [ 8 ] In her Written Submission, Ms.

Roy explains she is not a lawyer or a great writer, but: “I wrote about things of true facts of what has happened to me over the years of my whole life.” She explains that she believes that the Defendants are liable because she has gone “... through the chain of command ...”, and the Defendants “... have not spoken to me, helped me, solve, give solutions, or attempt to correct.” [sic]. Ms. Roy continues that this non-response by the Defendants:

... is why I Have and Had No further Option to Bring this forward to the Honarable court system. This also concludes the Information I have given in my Statement of Claim. ... I did not point out ALL Remedy sought in my claim As I Don’t Know How to Put value on my Life After 40 years, or How to put value on my childs” [Emphasis in original, sic]. [ 9 ] What follows is also difficult to understand.

First, are two apparently linked pages, one of which is a cancelled-out template Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench “Affidavit - Substitutional Service” form, and a second page perhaps printed from a Government of Alberta website, annotated with the statement “? Circle of madness cutting corners”, and a dotted line labelled “cut” that runs around some parts of the page. [ 10 ] Next is a letter from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta to Ms. Roy and the Minister of Children’s Services indicating that a FOIP review would not be completed until January 18, 2022. Ms.

Roy comments in relation to this correspondence: “Did nothing. Knew about it.” The next several pages are what may be printouts of text messages sent to an unidentified cell phone in 2016. Ms. Roy comments that this information “... is what counts ... under the FOIP Act.” The meaning of other annotations to the text message printouts is unclear. [ 11 ] The final page of Ms. Roy’s Written Submission states: -What did Jared Wiebe Do.

Continue to further cost and denie access to my child. -Had costs at an EPO trial and more. -cutting cornes makes for a system failer -Remedy Saught: -I want everything Back Everything, Esspecially my Life and the Relationship of my child. -Everything means: Court costs, court fees, Expenses Damages and anything the court can provide. -Back Everything means: Things that Have been Stollen, taken, Including property and Investment Plus Intrest. -medical costs as now this is sever and Prolonged, Being on Disability, and locked in my Truck. [Sic.] [ 12 ] Counsel for Ms. Salel and the OIPC state that Ms.

Roy’s Statement of Claim does not make any valid claim against these Defendants, and argues that the OIPC is not actually named as a Defendant. Counsel says no action may be advanced against these Defendants because liability is excluded by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , s 60; see also Ernst v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board) , 2014 ABCA 285 , aff’d 2017 SCC 1 . The Statement of Claim otherwise does not conform to the Alberta Rules of Court , and does not make potentially valid allegations against either of these Defendants. [ 13 ] I conclude that Ms.

Roy’s Written Submissions are non-responsive to the issue identified in Roy #1 : how does the Statement of Claim that Ms. Roy filed satisfy the minimum pleadings requirements set by law, so as to provide the Court and Defendants the “who, when, where, how, and what” that is the basis for Ms. Roy’s claims. To the extent that Ms. Roy appears to be attempting to introduce evidence in her Written Submission, that is excluded by Rule 3.68(3), which prohibits evidence directed to whether a “... pleading is frivolous, irrelevant or improper ...”. Further.

CPN7 is a process focussed on a single filing, and its content and substance: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 . [ 14 ] I also agree with the submissions of Counsel for Ms. Salel and the OIPC. [ 15 ] Ms. Roy has not rebutted the prima facie conclusion in Roy #1 that her Statement of Claim is a hopeless proceeding, and an abuse of the Court and its process. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2101 10345 Statement of Claim is struck out pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 Rule 3.68. III. Conclusion [ 16 ] Ms. Roy’s Statement of Claim is struck out, immediately. When an action, application, or claim is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigants who referred the matter to the Court, and/or who participated in the CPN7 process: 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 ; Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6 .

I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. I order Ms. Roy pay forthwith: 1. Jared Wiebe and Miles Davison LLP, jointly, $500 in costs, and 2. Leanne Salel and the OPIC, jointly, $500 in costs. [ 17 ] Counsel for Jared Wiebe and Miles Davison LLP will prepare the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Roy’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the corresponding Order may be served on Ms. Roy by email: 123karensfreedom@gmail.com. [ 18 ] I very strongly recommend that Ms.

Roy obtain professional legal advice in relation to her future court activities. Her developing pattern of abusive litigation risks serious future costs, court-imposed penalties, and court access restriction consequences. Ms. Roy may also contact a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, or the University of Calgary

Student Legal Assistance program. I believe Ms. Roy would greatly benefit from this kind of assistance in pursuing (or not pursuing) her complaints and concerns. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 1 st day of October, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Karen Henderson Roy Self-represented Litigant Sean T. Fitzgerald for the Defendants Jared Wiebe and Miles Davison LLP. Glenn Solomon Q.C. JSS Barristers For the Defendants Leanne Salel and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner