Baptiste v Wesley Band, 2021 ABQB 834

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Baptiste v Wesley Band, 2021 ABQB 834 Date: 20211020 Docket: 2101 10830 Registry: Calgary Between: Kimberly Erica Candace Baptiste Applicant - and - Wesley Band and Bearspaw Band Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On September 3, 2021, Kimberley Erica Candace Baptiste [Ms.

Baptiste] filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench an “Originating Application - Notice of Appeal/Reference Under an Enactment” [Application], naming the Wesley Band and Bearspaw Band [the Bands] as Respondents. Ms. Baptiste did not pay any filing fee because she had obtained a fee waiver. The document is an

Alberta Rules of Court Form 5 completed with handwriting. The entire body of the Application reads: Basis for the claim/reference/appeal/matter to be put before the Court: 1. Intentional oppression. Discrimination Sabotage. with holding of ongoing educational funding. Land Plotting. 2. Harassment through on reservation CFS and other band services. ongoing fraud (Embezzling Reason for this being they say wethe band is [illegible]. Remedy sought 3. Housing, Resources, recreations, Damages. Educational funding. Student loans paid. (28 YRS) 4. Restraining orders, land titles.

Possible lifetime restraining orders from home places of business and educations. Disbanned. 5. A remedial option of transfer of lands to province in exchange for other lands based on all the corruption related to land fordisability + + poverty program for [illegible] areas with Less [Sic.] [2] Ms. Baptiste’s Application was first heard in Justice Chambers on September 21, 2021, and adjourned sine die by JusticePrice. [3] Counsel for the Bands, on October 7, 2021, by letter, referred Ms.

Baptiste’s Application as a candidate ApparentlyVexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. I am designated to receive andreview potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. After review of Ms. Baptiste’s Application, I conclude that pleading exhibitscharacteristics of abusive litigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II.

CPN7 [4] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has noprospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious. This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effectiveresponse to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874 [Unrau #1]. [5] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwiseabusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to applyRule 3.68 and strike out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Courtwith a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimateaction and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [6] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are“apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1, at paras 22, 24. Only restrictedforms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operatesto examine 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 [7] The Application appears to provide inadequate pleadings.

An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which theopposing 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. [8] Ms. Baptiste cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill inthe blanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20.

A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, butgoes to the 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 arespondent cannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposedargument, or make findings on the relevant facts: Unrau #2 at para 629. [9] Ms. Baptiste’s Application is, at best, composed of bald allegations. Many critical facts or alleged facts are absent.

Ms.Baptiste’s Application is, according to its title, either a “Notice of Appeal” or a “Reference Under an Enactment”. However, thedocument identifies neither a decision that is being appealed, nor the legislation or other basis for this filing. [10] Otherwise, the Application fails to provide the “who, when, where, how and what” of Ms. Baptiste’s claims. For example,Ms. Baptiste alleges “Intentional oppression.”. By whom? Was it Ms. Baptiste who was oppressed? When did that happen? What wasthat “oppression”? Does Ms.

Baptiste mean this is “oppression” as that concept is used in the Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-

9 and

Canada Business Corporations Act , RSC 1985, c C-44 , or something else? [ 11 ] Nothing specific is alleged against either of the Band Respondents. How are they involved with Ms. Baptiste? Is she a band member? An employee? Something else? Ms. Baptiste alleges “ongoing fraud” and “Embezzling”, but provides no specific information on that misconduct. That appears to breach the mandatory pleadings requirements set by Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 , s 13.7. [ 12 ] Other allegations are entirely cryptic. What is “Land Plotting”? Similarly, the remedies identified are also unclear and open- ended. Ms.

Baptiste seeks “Student loans paid.” Whose loans? What are their amounts? How is that linked to Ms. Baptiste’s allegations? Who should be subject to restraining orders? Why? [ 13 ] I therefore request Ms. Baptiste explain how her September 3, 2021 Application provides the basis for the Court and Respondents to make a meaningful response. IV. Conclusion [ 14 ] Ms. Baptiste’s Application appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court, therefore, seeks that Ms.

Baptiste answer how the Application is not an abuse of the Court and provides a basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response. [ 15 ] As a result of this analysis, I order that Ms. Baptiste’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 10830 Application is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Baptiste 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 whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Baptiste provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Respondents have seven days to make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms.

Baptiste’s Written Submission, and the Respondents’ Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Docket 2101 10830 Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 16 ] The Court will prepare the Order staying this Action. Ms. Baptiste’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). 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: Brooke Barrett Rae and Company for the Respondents