Abdulkadir v Alberta (Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service), 2021 ABQB 857

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Abdulkadir v Alberta (Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service), 2021 ABQB 857 Date: 20211029 Docket: 2103 15027 Registry: Edmonton Between: Said Abdulkadir Plaintiff - and - The Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On October 27, 2021, Said Abdulkadir (Mr.

Abdulkadir) filed with the Court a handwritten document titled “Statement of Claim - Negligence Not enough grounds $7,235,890,000.00” that names “The Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service” (Crown) as the Defendant. The entire body of the Statement of Claim reads: Statement of facts relied on:

1. - I am not on camera - unlawful arrest, not enough evidence to continue prosecution - Defamation of character - The store that got robbed has cameras - Interview took place before warrant was issued. I told the officer that I lived in Calgary Remedy sought: - Jail record of my absence [2] On October 28, 2021, the Clerk of the Court referred Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim as an Apparently VexatiousApplication or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5.

I have received and examined thatreferral since I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. CPN7 is reviewable on-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes. [3] I conclude that Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify ascharacteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim should be subject toa CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, AR 124/2010.

That means I have decided thatMr. Abdulkadir must file a Written Submission setting out why his Statement of Claim should not be struck out because it issignificantly deficient. II. CPN7 [4] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance ofsuccess, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effectiveresponse: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874 (Unrau #1). [5] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusiveand vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out theAVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. [6] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission ofup to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted tocontinue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and mustalso be served on the other parties to the litigation. [7] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the faceof the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 at paras 22 and 24. [8] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a verynarrow focus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB347 at paras 24-48 (Ubah #2). There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the sameproceeding that are related to the suspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is anattempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III. Analysis A. Inadequate Pleadings [9] An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of thecase 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 para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015FCA 227 at paras 16-20. Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate tothe responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19, see also Quaye v Law Society of Alberta, 2021 ABCA 167 at para 13. [10] Mr.

Abdulkadir 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. [11] Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim appears to relate in some sense to a criminal prosecution and/or investigation.Otherwise, the pleadings do not appear to provide the necessary “who, when, where, how and what” to identify what Mr. Abdulkadir

alleges. I direct that Mr. Abdulkadir explain how his Statement of Claim permits the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response to Mr. Abdulkadir’s allegation(s). B. Excessive or Impossible Remedies [ 12 ] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 620-625 . Mr. Abdulkadir seems to be seeking somewhat over $7 trillion. Mr. Abdulkadir provides no basis at all for that very large amount. Mr. Abdulkadir is directed to explain why his $7 trillion claim is not excessive and/or impossible.

IV. Conclusion [ 13 ] Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks Mr. Abdulkadir response 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 is the remedy sought in the Statement of Claim not excessive or impossible? [ 14 ] CPN7 now advances to its second step. This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearances or oral argument. The next steps are: 1) Mr.

Abdulkadir has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as described in para 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If Mr. Abdulkadir provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendant has seven days to provide a Written Reply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives Mr. Abdulkadir’s Written Submission and the Defendant’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 15 ] The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2103 15027 is stayed until further notice. The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this Action (see CPN7, para 7). Mr.

Abdulkadir’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . This Memorandum of Decision and the Interim Order shall be served on Mr. Abdulkadir via the email address identified in his Statement of Claim: dirmad355@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 29 th day of October, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None