Baptiste v Wesley Band, 2021 ABQB 869

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Baptiste v Wesley Band, 2021 ABQB 869 Date: 20211102 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, Kimberly 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 Cour t 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 we the 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 for disability + + 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 Justice Price. [ 3 ] Counsel for the Bands, on October 7, 2021, by letter, referred Ms.

Baptiste’s Application 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. Baptiste’s Application, I concluded, in a decision reported as Baptiste v Wesley Band , 2021 ABQB 834 [ Baptiste #1 ], that Ms. Baptiste’s Application appeared to be an abuse of court processes because it failed to provide a basis for the Court and Respondents to make a meaningful response. [ 4 ] Ms.

Baptiste was invited to prepare and submit an up to ten-page Written Submission to explain how her Application was valid, and not abusive litigation: Baptiste #1 at paras 14-15 . My office received a ten-page handwritten Written Submission on October 29, 2021. After review of Ms. Baptiste’s Written Application, I have concluded that I may immediately proceed to evaluate whether Ms. Baptiste has rebutted the prima facie defect identified in Baptiste #1 . II. CPN7 Analysis [ 5 ] Baptiste #1 at paras 7-8 reviews the legal minimum requirements for a document that initiates a legal process, or “pleadings”.

I, then, at paras 9-12, provided examples of how Ms. Baptiste’s pleadings do not appear to satisfy that threshold, and, therefore, are an abuse of court processes. [ 6 ] Ms. Baptiste in her Written Submission expands on her allegations. Ms. Baptiste explains her membership in, and affiliations with, multiple bands. Ms.

Baptiste states she may be “the Hereditary chief of all 3 Bands.” She details complaints about housing issues, problems in obtaining Band membership for her children, alleged preferential treatment received by others from Band leaderships, nepotism, and that certain individuals with authority are linked to the Hells Angels. Ms. Baptiste alleges embezzlement, mismanagement, and misuse of Band funds and resources. Ms. Baptiste says she and her family do not receive their fair share of Band resources and community benefits. [ 7 ] None of this information is admissible in a CPN7 proceeding.

CPN7 is a mechanism to conduct Rule 3.68 proceedings. Rule 3.68(3) prohibits parties introducing evidence where that evidence is in relation to whether a filing “... discloses no reasonable claim or defence to a claim ...”: Rule 3.68(2)(b). In short, the Alberta Rules of Court do not permit Ms. Baptiste to expand on her claims, or provide evidence allegedly relevant to those claims during a CPN7 procedure. [ 8 ] In addition, Ms.

Baptiste’s Written Submission does not reply to the question that I asked in Baptiste #1 : “how the Application ... provides a basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response” [emphasis added]. Ms. Baptiste was not asked why, generally, her litigation may be valid, but, instead, specifically, how the document she filed on September 3, 2021, and that document’s contents, provided a basis for a meaningful response. Her Written Submission does not address that issue. [ 9 ] I, therefore, conclude Ms. Baptiste has not rebutted the prima facie defect identified in Baptiste #1 . Ms.

Baptiste’s Application is, accordingly, struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68 and CPN7. III. Conclusion [ 10 ] Ms. Baptiste’s Docket 2101 10830 proceeding 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. Baptiste pay the Respondents, collectively, $500.00 forthwith. [ 11 ] Counsel for the Respondents will prepare the Order giving effect to this decision. 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 2 nd day of November, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Kimberly Erica Candace Baptiste Self-represented Litigant Brooke Barrett Rae and Company for the Respondents