Laurie v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 833

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Laurie v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 833 Date: 20211020 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. I concluded in a decision reported as Laurie v Alberta , 2021 ABQB 741 [ Laurie #1 ] that Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim was prima facie an abuse of the court, and therefore should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. [ 9 ] Ms.

Laurie was invited to make an up to ten-page Written Submission that responded to three questions: 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. [ Laurie #1 at para 34 .] [ 10 ] The Court on September 29, 2021 received a ten-page Written Submission from Ms. Laurie. Written Replies were received from Counsel for the College and Dr. Mojtahedi. That completes the CPN7 process. This Decision now determines whether Ms.

Laurie has rebutted the deficiencies identified in Laurie #1 , and established that her lawsuit has a legitimate basis. II. Analysis [ 11 ] I will individually review Ms. Laurie’s responses to the three broad defects identified in Laurie #1 . However, as a preliminary and general point, I will first address an issue with Ms. Laurie’s Written Submission. In that document, Ms. Laurie indicates that she will introduce evidence to support her allegations. At times Ms. Laurie also directly expands on her allegations. For example, Ms. Laurie’s Written Submission includes the text of an August 27, 2019 letter from a Dr.

Grant Peters. Pages 5-7 of Ms. Laurie’s Written Submission are a purported transcript of a recorded conversation between Ms. Laurie and Defendant, Dr. Mojtahedi. [ 12 ] CPN7 is a method to conduct the Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court process: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 . Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 prohibits attempts to add or supplement allegations against the Defendants during a Rule 3.68 procedure. The scope of Ms. Laurie’s claims is set by the content of her Statement of Claim.

She cannot add to her allegations via the CPN7 process. Subsection 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court states that: No evidence may be submitted on an application made on the basis ... [a commencement document or pleading discloses no reasonable claim ...]. I will not, in the analysis that follows, detail the additional and excluded claims made by Ms. Laurie in her Written Submission. There were inadmissible and irrelevant. A. Hopeless and Premature Litigation [ 13 ] Certain aspects of Ms. Laurie’s lawsuit appear to be hopeless and/or premature. Ms.

Laurie’s claims against the College appear to be 1) prohibited by Health Professions Act , SA 1999, c H-5.5 , s 126 [ HPA ], and 2) premature as having been initiated without exhausting the College complaint process: Laurie #1 at paras 14-16 . Ms. Laurie grounds many of her complaints on human rights legislation, but the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled this Court has no jurisdiction to evaluate issues with that basis: Laurie #1 at paras 17-18 . Ms. Laurie also relies on provisions of a 1988 Alberta legislature private members bill that was never enacted into law: Laurie #1 at para 19 . Ms.

Laurie also has made claims against doctors who are not named as parties to legislation, and on behalf of her children, who are not parties to the proposed litigation. Ms. Laurie was asked to explain how these “busybody” and “third party” aspects of her lawsuit are valid: Laurie #1 at paras 20-22 . [ 14 ] In relation to the College’s liability, Ms. Laurie cites HPA s 3(1), that sets the scope of the College’s roles and functions, and argues the College is “... indirectly responsible as they are the Licensee of Physicians in Alberta.” Ms.

Laurie says she has not named various physicians as Defendants because “it shows a pattern of discrimination, no treatment and not being governed by the college.” The Written Submission does not respond to the human rights legislation and draft bill issues, or why Ms. Laurie is advancing “busybody” claims on behalf of her non-party children. [ 15 ] The College responds that Ms. Laurie’s Written Submission is unresponsive to the hopeless and premature litigation issues identified in Laurie #1 . Counsel for Dr.

Mojtahedi agrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Canada Human Rights Act and the Alberta Patients Bill of Rights are not a basis to advance claims against the Defendants, including Dr. Mohtahedi. [ 16 ] I conclude that Ms. Laurie has not rebutted the hopeless and premature litigation defects identified in Laurie #1 . On that basis I conclude that certain of Ms. Laurie’s claims are an abuse of court and the Defendants: 1. all claims against the College; 2. all claims that rely an alleged breach of Ms.

Laurie’s human rights, breach of human rights legislation, or that purport to implicate the Alberta Patients Bill of Rights; this eliminates Alberta and Canada entirely as Defendants; 3. damage claims for relief paid to Ms. Laurie’s children; and 4. damages claimed that involve “Hospitals” and unnamed doctors other than Dr. Mojtahedi. These elements of Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim are struck out. B. Inadequate Pleadings

[17] Laurie #1 at paras 23-24 reviewed for Ms. Laurie the law relating to the minimum pleadings that are sufficient for aStatement of Claim to establish a viable cause of action. In brief, pleadings must provide the “who, when, where, how and what” basisfor a lawsuit so that the Court and Defendants can make a meaningful response. In Laurie #1, at paras 25-28, I concluded that the lawsuitStatement of Claim does not appear to provide adequate “particulars” to describe: 1) the nature of the illegality Ms. Laurie alleged, and2) the basis for her damages claims. [18] As indicated above, Ms.

Laurie’s primary response in her Written Submission to this issue was to expand on her Statement ofClaim. That is prohibited per Rule 3.68(3). Otherwise, Ms. Laurie advances what might be called an ethical, or moral, argument: that thenature of the harm Ms. Laurie says she has experienced is enough that the text of her Statement of Claim is irrelevant. She is not alawyer, and therefore what has happened to her, in itself, makes her claim one that must be pursued. [19] The College made no argument on the adequacy of pleadings. Counsel for Dr. Mojahedi conducted a detailed point-by-pointexamination of Ms.

Laurie’s claims against Dr. Mojahedi, noting these are “bald allegations”, and do not provide a meaningful basis forthis Defendant to make a response. [20] I conclude Ms. Laurie has not rebutted the conclusion in Laurie #1 that her Statement of Claim relies on bald allegations andotherwise inadequate pleadings. She did not show how her Statement of Claim, as filed, establishes a valid action. I, therefore, conclude,independent of other findings, that Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court and the Defendants by failing to adequatelyplead claims in a manner that permits a meaningful response. C.

Excessive and/or Impossible Remedies [21] The Laurie #1 decision, at paras 29-33, reviews how the damages and remedies sought by Ms. Laurie appear to be excessiveor impossible. In particular, I noted that Ms. Laurie’s $56.5 million claimed appears to largely relate to “pain and suffering” generaldamages, and, therefore, greatly exceeded the $365,000 maximum (after inflation) set in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452. [22] Ms. Laurie in her Written Submission says her damages assessment is valid because she must be treated in the US, whichwould involve much greater cost.

She particularizes certain amounts, such as $110,000 for a spinal fusion treatment. She now alsoindicates her damages are warranted by the high cost of her receiving daily home care, medication, and a “mediterranean diet ... [w]hichis extremely expensive.” However, Ms. Laurie ultimately continues to base her very large damages claim on her life expectancy, personalcircumstances, and physical discomfort: How do you put a price on someones life.

Without treatment for my Polycythemia, fatty liver disease (possible cancer lesion ((noadditional tests performed)), fatty pancreas, possible lung disease (no exporation/tests done) and diabetes. I can only predict my death willbe very painful.( as my grandfather died of lung cancer). I already live with pain daily so I am asking you, if you dismiss this claimwithout it going to trial, I ask for you to grant me assisted Suicide when it spreads all over my body. ... Every day this claim is delayed, or a judgement is not in my favor, my cancer, my health is deteriorating.

I need to be seen, treated,counselled on my diagnoses, so that I may put my affairs in order and prepare my childern. [Sic.] [23] Ms. Laurie did not identify why this Court is not bound by Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. As such, though Ms. Laurieclearly believes otherwise, Canadian law does indeed establish a maximum price on a person’s health, well-being, comfort, and lifeexpectancy: $365,000. Even if Ms. Laurie experiences worst-case outcomes, even if the court were to accept same, her maximum awardon this basis is a very small fraction of what her lawsuit demands. I conclude Ms.

Laurie’s Statement of Claim seeks: 1) impossible remedies, including claims against non-parties, and “busybody” claims on behalf of her non-party children, and 2) excessive damage claims, particularly her general damages amount. [24] The Statement of Claim’s excessive and impossible remedies are a further independent basis to conclude that Ms. Laurie’sStatement of Claim is an abuse of the Court, and should be struck out on that basis. III. Conclusion [25] Ms. Laurie’s Statement of Claim is struck out, immediately.

When an action, application, or claim is terminated via the CPN7process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigants who referred the matter to the Court, and/or whoparticipated in the CPN7 process: e.g. Ahad v Calgary Housing Company, 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9; Phillips v Kenney, 2020 ABQB452 at para 9; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta, 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43; Feeney v Alberta, 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6. [26] I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. In light of the damages amount claimed, and

Schedule C of theAlberta Rules of Court, I order Ms. Laurie pay, forthwith: 1. Alberta: $2,000 in costs, 2. the College: $2,000 in costs, and 3. Dr. Mojtahedi: $2,000 in costs. [27] Counsel for Alberta will prepare the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Laurie’s approval of that Order is dispensed

with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). [ 28 ] I very strongly recommend that Ms. Laurie 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. Laurie 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. Laurie 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 20 th day of October, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Corrinnia M. Laurie Self-represented Litigant Gerald Beaudry for the Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta Navdeep Kaur for the Defendant Dr. Khatereh Mojtahedi Mylene D. Tiessen for the Defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta