Davidson v Alberta Health Services, 2021 ABQB 886

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Davidson v Alberta Health Services, 2021 ABQB 886 Date: 20211108 Docket: 2108 00225 Registry: Medicine Hat Between: Michele Marie Davidson Plaintiff - and - Alberta Health Services and Medicine Hat Hospital Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On July 5, 2021, a Statement of Claim was filed in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that named five Plaintiffs: Gabriel Walter Davidson [Gabriel Davidson], Michele Marie Davidson [Ms. Davidson], Aurore Grace Davidson, Julian Kim Davidson, and Levi Michael Schafer, who sued Alberta Health Services [AHS], the Medicine Hat Hospital [Hospital], and “Physicians and Staff, as named in

Statement of Claim” for $5 million. This 15-page document makes many complaints, but its claims generally focus on two points: 1. that some or all of the Plaintiffs were exposed to mold, and 2. that Gabriel Davidson was wrongly detained for psychiatric treatment in the Hospital. [ 2 ] Gates J, on August 3, 2021, ordered that if Gabriel Davidson wished to challenge his ongoing psychiatric detention, then Gabriel Davidson must file an appeal of the Mental Health Review Panel decision that approved that detention by August 6, 2021. Justice Gates also directed that if Ms.

Davidson seeks to continue the July 5, 2021 action, then Ms. Davidson must file a draft Amended Statement of Claim. The validity of the Amended Statement of Claim would then be evaluated on August 17, 2021. [ 3 ] Ms. Davidson, on August 9, 2021, filed a 41-page Amended Statement of Claim in the Docket 2108 00225 Action. Ms. Davidson is the only named Plaintiff. The Amended Statement of Claim only names AHS and the Hospital as Defendants. The Amended Statement of Claim increases the damages claim to $25 million.

The August 17, 2021 appearance scheduled by Justice Gates to determine the validity of the August 9, 2021 Amended Statement of Claim was adjourned sine die . [ 4 ] Gabriel Davidson appears to be an adult, aged 19 years. Ms. Davidson is Gabriel Davidson’s mother. Justice Miller, on June 29, 2021, appointed Ms. Davidson as a Guardian for Gabriel Davidson. Ms.

Davidson, on August 12, 2021, filed an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Originating Application, Docket No. 2108 00268, that sought to appeal the decision of the Mental Health Review Panel to continue Gabriel Davidson’s detention and treatment, and to: 1. terminate all medicate treatment of Gabriel Davidson, 2. release Gabriel Davidson to his mother as Guardian, and 3. order tests and treatment of Gabriel Davidson for “Mold Toxicity” and related conditions. Neufeld J dismissed the Originating Application on September 1, 2021. Justice Neufeld’s Decision has not been appealed.

The June 29, 2021 Guardianship order has now expired. [ 5 ] Counsel for AHS and the Hospital on October 13, 2021, by letter, referred the Amended 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. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim, I conclude that pleading exhibits characteristics of abusive litigation, is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II.

CPN7 [ 6 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious. This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 7 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strike out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Court with a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 8 ] 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 restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates to 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 the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45 ). III. CPN7 Analysis [ 9 ] Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim is a difficult document to understand. Overall, its structure is more a narrative, than a conventional legal filing that identifies events and issues, and indicates why Defendants are liable to the one Plaintiff.

Its first numbered “paragraph” is 39 pages long. [ 10 ] A number of pages of the Amended Statement of Claim appear to be argument by Gabriel Davidson in relation to his detention and treatment. That means this material might have been copied from documents filed in the Docket 2108 00268 appeal of the Mental Health Review Panel decision. Several pages appear to reproduce medical codes of ethics. Many allegations relate to non-parties, including former Plaintiffs from the original Statement of Claim, and what appear to be medical personnel. [ 11 ] Other information appears unrelated to any of Ms. Davidson’s claims.

For example, Ms. Davidson comments on a friend named “Glen Piche”, who Ms. Davidson reports committed suicide in the same facility that now houses Gabriel Davidson. Ms. Davidson says she knows that suicide involved psychiatric misconduct:

... my friend Glen Piche, knowing him better than anyone, and knowing the truth that it was NOT Glen, that hung himself, I knew 100%,it was the mind-altering drugs, Glen was the biggest Jesus lover in Medicine Hat, praying to meet a wife, one month prior to his death hemeets a woman and marries, he then TAKES HIS OWN LIFE???!!!, ABSOLUTLEY NOT, ESPECIALLY WHAT I KNOW THEMIND ALTERING EFFECTS OF PSHYCHOTIC DRUGS [sic.] [12] Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim appears to exhibit a number of issues. A.

Collateral Attack [13] A collateral attack is a litigation step, or proceeding, that challenges, directly or indirectly, a prior final court decision orresult, in a legally impermissible way. Collateral attacks are generally prohibited and an abuse of process: British Columbia (Workers’Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 at para 28. Collateral attacks subvert “the orderly and functional administration ofjustice”: Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 835 at 871, 120 DLR (4th) 12.

Any action orapplication that is identified as a collateral attack should be terminated, immediately: Alberta v Pocklington Foods Inc, 1995 ABCA 111at para 14. [14] Examples of prohibited collateral attacks include: 1. bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, 2. using previously raised grounds and issues improperly in a subsequent proceeding, 3. conducting a proceeding to circumvent the effect of a court order, and 4. conducting multiple proceedings with the same litigation objective. [Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 619 [Unrau #2].] [15] Ms.

Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim is explicit that one aspect of Ms. Davidson’s allegations is that her son, GabrielDavidson, is undergoing inappropriate treatment in the Hospital. Ms. Davidson sometimes calls this “kidnapping”. Examples of theseclaims include: 1. “psychotic medication” was forced on Gabriel Davidson with the objective of financial gain and to induce life-long prescriptiondrug addiction: ... to accomplish their goal of drug pushers and acquiring a new customer, “FOR LIFE” and forever trapped in there, perpetual money-making gang ... [sic]; 2.

Gabriel Davidson is detained illegally and without Ms. Davidson’s consent; 3. Gabriel Davidson is improperly being denied herbal extract treatment, specifically a produced named Liquid Gold iHerqules; 4. hospital staff did not properly care for Gabriel Davidson, “... INCLUDING BRAINWASHING HIM TO THINK HIS FAMILYABANDONED HIM ...”, which resulted in “STOCKHOLME SYNDROM” [sic]; and 5.

Gabriel Davidson was not fed appropriate meals and is therefore being starved. [16] On September 1, 2021, Neufeld J confirmed, in his Docket No. 2108 00268 oral decision, the Mental Health Review Panel’sconclusion that Gabriel Davidson’s ongoing detention and treatment in the Hospital is appropriate. That court determination standsunchallenged. The only method to review the September 1, 2021 Docket No. 2108 00268 ruling is via an appeal to the Alberta Court ofAppeal. No such appeal has been filed. [17] I request Ms.

Davidson explain why her Amended Statement of Claim is not a collateral attack on the findings of the MentalHealth Review Panel and Justice Neufeld, and, therefore, an abuse of the Court. B. Busybody Litigation [18] Litigation where a person purports to involve himself or herself in the rights of uninvolved third parties is a form of abusivelitigation often referred to as “busybody litigation”: Unrau #2 at para 664. Busybody litigation is an abuse of court processes thatwarrants an action being struck out on that basis. [19] I have previously reviewed, some of the claims Ms.

Davidson has advanced are explicitly in relation to Gabriel Davidson, forwhom she is no longer guardian, and who is not a named plaintiff in the Amended Statement of Claim action. Ms. Davidson’s AmendedStatement of Claim also explicitly seeks remedies on behalf of persons other than herself: ... The systemic denial of care and including the denial of the correct blood test, diagnosis and recognition of CIRS, (ChronicInflammatory Response Syndrome) also known as Mycotoxicosis, Sick Building Syndrome, for 3 family members, Gabriel, Aurore,Michele of the 5 family members.

The illness, developed due to toxic mold exposure, and left untreated and thus causing increaseddanger to the families health, ... ... CIRS, Mycotoxicosis left untreated is known to develop into a more severe illnesses, increase in mental health, stress, emotionalsuffering and mental suffering caused by a continued denial of correct diagnosis. These acts so egregious, the lives of the entire familyhave been severely affected and altered unnecessarily, The plaintiff is seeking $25,000,000.00 or in such high amount as the Honourable

Court deems just. ... Punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages for the reprehensible gross conduct and reckless endangerment of the Plaintiff and herfamily, Gabriel Walter Davidson, Aurore Grace Davidson, Julian Kim Davidson, Levi Michael Schafer. [Emphasis added, sic.] [20] Ms. Davidson is asked to indicate how her seeking remedies for persons who are not named in the Amended Statement ofClaim is not busybody litigation, and an abuse of the Court and its processes. C. Pseudolaw Claims [21] The Amended Statement of Claim on several occasions makes claims that Ms.

Davidson owns her son Gabriel as property,and that she is not subject to Canadian law, including: ... our Basic Human Rights, Common Law Rights, God's Law which No Man or Woman has the right to Usurp my Authority over mychildren and family, and including our rights as Canadians who have signed onto the International Nuremburg codes. As well, Canada,having NO constitution, meaning, we the people had never voted for this Mental Health Act. ... ...

Please be advised that the hearing has NO LAWFUL RIGHT to occur and the man or woman who is overseeing this, produce theevidence Gabriel is his / her property or has a contract in order to have any Jurisdiction over this young man who is in your care. Gabrielis my son and my property to protect, so no trespass occurs. The man or woman will be liable for trespass if my son is notIMMEDIATLY RELEASED.

I DO NOT CONSENT to any of this hearing as it is now evidence of MASSIVE BREACH of TRUST andthe NUREMBURG CODES apply to anyone who forces any MEDICAL DETAINMENT or MEDICINE without RIGHT againstGabriel. [Sic.] [22] Many of the claims made by Ms.

Davidson are familiar and well-known Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument[OPCA] concepts, as documented in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 and other Canadian court decisions, for example: 1. “Common Law”, or “God’s Law” trumps Canadian law; 2. the Canadian state is defective in some manner, here allegedly because there is no Canadian constitution; 3. state authority is solely dependent on contract; and 4. individuals may “opt out” of, and refuse to consent to, Canadian law. [23] Any attempt to implement OPCA schemes is an abuse of the Court, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau #2 atparas 180, 670-671.

Furthermore, certain OPCA schemes, such as the “opt out” strategy, have been consistently rejected by Canadiancourts, and are so notoriously false that simply employing these schemes creates a presumption that a person appears in court for a bad-faith, ulterior purpose: Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31 at paras 37-40; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 6-21; Unrau #2,at para 180. [24] Alberta courts have repeatedly evaluated and rejected claims that a parent owns children as chattel property (even here, whereGabriel is now no longer a child, or under guardianship), e.g.: SS (Re), 2016 ABPC 170; Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018ABQB 472, court access restricted 2017 ABQB 611; DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult), 2018 ABQB 1021; CP (Re), 2019 ABQB 388, courtaccess restricted 2019 ABQB 388; AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489; Idris v Mohamed, 2021 ABQB 529, litigation struck out and courtaccess restricted 2021 ABQB 686.

Mandziuk J in DKD (Re) (Dependent Adult) at para 11 concluded “... characterizing human beings asproperty is repugnant to modern Canadian society, values and law.” [25] Furthermore, Canadian Courts have concluded that a parent who implicates his or her children in pseudolaw schemes asengaged in misconduct that is a very serious negative indication, so that person is not a fit parent: reviewed in Landry (Re), 2021 ABQB39 at paras 22-24. [26] Ms. Davidson is requested to explain how the jurisprudence identified here concerning OPCA strategies is incorrect, and whythis Court should not conclude Ms.

Davidson’s attempts to apply pseudolaw concepts are an abuse of the court, and conducted with abad-faith, ulterior purpose. D. Inadequate Pleadings, Extraordinary Claims, and Irrelevant Facts [27] As previously indicated, Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim is a lengthy and difficult to understand document. Itscontents, or “pleadings”, appear to be problematic. An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing party mustrespond, and alerts that party of the case it must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87.

Proper pleadings requiremore 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), 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20 [Mancuso].

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and otherlitigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to itsliability.”: Mancuso at para 19. [28] The Supreme Court of Canada, in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485,instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potential reliefpursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[29] Ms. Davidson cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill inthe blanks”: Mancuso at para 20. A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, but goes to the core of the claim: GH v Alcock atpara 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 a respondent cannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposed argument, or make findings on the relevant facts:Unrau #2 at para 629. [30] A first issue with the Amended Statement of Claim is that, although that document is lengthy, and at certain points providesmuch information, it appears certain claims are incomplete, or perhaps unrelated to Ms. Davidson’s claim. While Ms.

Davidson allegesnegligent and intentionally wrongful acts by the Defendants, much of the Amended Statement of Claim does not seem to implicate theseDefendants. [31] For example, the Amended Statement of Claim goes on at some length about how Ms. Davidson rejects information abouthow Gabriel Davidson was located, at some point, on Canadian Armed Forces Base Suffield. This event appears, somehow, linked toGabriel Davidson being assessed and identified as requiring psychiatric intervention. Ms. Davidson challenges this narrative, saying, forexample: ...

Does Army personal not go back to Suffield from Medicine Hat after a night of drinking? How is it that drunk army personnel do notenter this restricted area? I am unsure how Gabriel. being in Suffield's restricted area has become somehow his fault and/or mine? ... The implications and legal consequences of this information are unclear. [32] Similarly, Ms.

Davidson complains that her son being severely sunburned is false, and instead explains Gabriel Davidson “...had used excessive moisturizer. he put on his nose. in an attempt to rid the black heads, that annoyed him.” Again, how these claims arerelevant, or establish the Defendants’ liability, is unclear. [33] Another example is Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim also describes Ms. Davidson being criticized, chased, andassaulted by two of her sisters. While this event is described as occurring after the sisters visited Gabriel Davidson, what Ms. Davidsondescribes does not appear to involve the Defendants.

Similarly, Ms. Davidson complains she is mischaracterized as “A PATHETICHOMELESS MOTHER LIVING IN A TENT WITH HER SON. WHO NEVER HAD FOOD. HER INCOME ONLY A SLIMINCOME FROM POVERISH DISABILITY FUNDS.” Is this a defamation claim? Who said this? How are the Defendants implicated inthis alleged incorrect statement? [34] A second related issue is that Ms. Davidson makes extraordinary claims. In a Rule 3.68 procedure, pleaded facts are presumedto be true: R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para 17. However, this presumption is not unlimited.

As Gill J observedin Arabi v Alberta, 2014 ABQB 295 at paras 74-78, an action cannot rely on allegations that are absurd, highly implausible, orhyperbole. This is particularly true when no detail is offered on the nature of the underlying misconduct and its operation. Similarly,Manderscheid J in VWW v Wasylyshen, 2013 ABQB 327 at para 52, leave refused 2014 ABCA 121, concluded “[a]n extraordinaryclaim requires extraordinary proof.” [35] Many claims and allegations in the Amended Statement of Claim appear to have this characteristic. Ms.

Davidson says,without any apparent basis, that mental health professionals have only treated her son Gabriel with the intention of causing him tobecome a life-long drug addict. She says AHS is behind this: ... ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES, DOES NOT CARE, AND ONLY WANTS TO MAKE MONEY FROM BEINGPROFESSIONAL DRUG DEALERS, BACKED AND PROTECTED BY THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE POLICE FORCE. ... No explanation for this alleged extraordinary conduct is provided. [36] The Amended Statement of Claim appears to engage in hyperbolic, or excessive, claims. Ms.

Davidson says the Defendantsengage in “PROFESSIONAL RAPE”, “PSHCHOLOGICAL WARFARE” [sic], and “PEOPLES LIVES DESTROYED AND LIVESLOST, AS THE DOCTORS ARE PLACED IN THIS GOD LIKE POSITION”. Ms. Davidson complains about “... the constant CHAOSthe Medicine Hat Hospital and AHS operate in ... NO WONDER THE ADDRESS IS 666!!! ...”. [37] Ms. Davidson’s claims are expansive, disorganized, and involve broad and apparently excessive denunciations andallegations. I have observed how the Amended Statement of Claim appears to rely on OPCA concepts.

In Arabi v Alberta, Gill J at paras82-85 endorsed the conclusion that kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at para 9 that a court may strike a proceeding based on“gibberish”: incomprehensible arguments and allegations, where the defendant is “left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself” andthe court faces “a proceeding so ill-defined that it is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific material facts.” [38] I request Ms.

Davidson explain how her Amended Statement of Claim: 1. provides a basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response, 2. is not reliant on extraordinary, hyperbolic claims, and 3. is not “gibberish” that should not be the subject of Court review. E. Excessive and Impossible Claims [39] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim seeks $25 million in damages, and, as indicated above, it would appear that amountmust relate to Ms.

Davidson, personally, since she is the only named Plaintiff.

[40] The basis for Ms. Davidson’s damages is not clearly articulated. She seems to claim damages because of discomfort anddistress Ms. Davidson has experienced due to what she says is improper psychiatric treatment and detention of her adult son, GabrielDavidson. Ms. Davidson complains that she has been denied involvement with and access to her detained son, and that has caused herdistress. However, that is not the full scope of Ms. Davidson’s allegations. She also appears to somehow link the Defendants to moldexposure and related issues that followed when Ms.

Davidson, in 2014, purchased and resided in a “highly unsafe, toxic home”. [41] As best as I can determine, the injuries allegedly inflicted on Ms. Davidson by the Defendants are “pain and suffering”, whatlegally is classified as “general damages”. The maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed for pain and suffering was setin Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 [Andrews] at $100,000. Afterinflation, the Andrews general damages cap is now about $365,000. Ms.

Davidson’s claim exceeds that maximum many fold. [42] The Andrews maximum amount was appropriate in instances of severe negative outcomes, for example where a young adultwas injured so as to be nearly completely disabled. As I have previously indicated, what Ms. Davidson’s alleges are her injuries that sheattributes to the Defendants is not explicit, aside from stress and emotional discomfort that Ms. Davidson says is the result of incorrecttreatment of Gabriel Davidson. That means what Ms.

Davidson alleges does not appear to match the criteria for injuries that couldpotentially warrant a claim that approaches the $365,000 amount, let alone $25 million. [43] I request Ms. Davidson indicate why the Amended Statement of Claim damage amount is not impossible or excessive. IV. Conclusion [44] Ms. Davidson’s Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court, therefore, seeks thatMs.

Davidson answer how the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court: 1. as a collateral attack of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2108 00268 September 1, 2021 oral decision, and decisionsof the Mental Health Review Panel in relation to Gabriel Davidson; 2. as busybody litigation; 3. by raising OPCA arguments, and that the Amended Statement of Claim is conducted for bad-faith, ulterior purposes; 4. by:

a) not providing a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendants,

b) relying on extraordinary, hyperbolic claims, and

c) advancing “gibberish” claims; and 5. seeking remedies that are impossible or excessive. [45] As a result of this analysis, I order that Ms. Davidson’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2108 00225 AmendedStatement of Claim is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Ms. Davidson has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief JusticeRooke”. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms. Davidson provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to make a Written Reply of upto a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate ChiefJustice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Ms.

Davidson’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its finaldecision on whether the Docket 2108 00225 Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68(CPN7, para 3(e)). [46] The Court will prepare the Order staying this Action. Ms. Davidson’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant toRule 9.4(2)(c). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 8th day of November, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Patrick J. Heinsen Borden Ladner Gerais LLP for the Defendants Alberta Health Services and Medicine Hat Hospital