Abdulkadir v Alberta (Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service), 2021 ABQB 912

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Abdulkadir v Alberta (Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service), 2021 ABQB 912 Date: 20211115 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 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 Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5.

I have received and examined that referral since I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 3 ] I concluded in a Memorandum of Decision, reported as Abdulkadir v Alberta (Edmonton Crown Prosecutions Office Service) , 2021 ABQB 857 ( Abdulkadir #1 ), that Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . Mr.

Abdulkadir was asked to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission that responded 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? ( Abdulkadir #1 at para 13 ). [ 4 ] Mr. Abdulkadir on November 9, 2021 filed a ten-page handwritten Written Submission. Mr. Abdulkadir first states he is reducing his damages claim to $8.5 million. He explains his reputation with his “... family is ruined because they think I robb stores to fund Isis. ...

I am not a terrorist.” (sic). [ 5 ] What follows is a kind of narrative, in which Mr. Abdulkadir explains that police did not properly investigate his alleged involvement in robberies. Mr. Abdulkadir says he looks nothing like the actual criminal(s). Mr. Abdulkadir directly implicates Jason Kenney, “the premier of Alberta”, who Mr. Abdulkadir says “called me a terrorist”. Mr. Abdulkadir continues to allege Premier Kenney ordered Mr. Abdulkadir “picked me up for a EPS pick up” (sic), and misdirected the investigation of the robbery subjects. Mr.

Abdulkadir’s arrest was then publicized by the Edmonton Police Service, with a headline: ... “violent offender released”. I found that proceeding very disrespectful and unlawful to my culture and religion. [ 6 ] Mr. Abdulkadir says the Edmonton Police Service “... have a long list of police corruption. They hate Somalians. ... The Edmonton police have ruined my life.” (sic). Mr. Abdulkadir explains his family are “good muslims” and the false news of his illegal activity has caused hurt and outrage. [ 7 ] Mr.

Abdulkadir also explains that he knows the true robbers were Americans, because they dress differently from Canadians. Mr. Abdulkadir explains he knows this because of “... people from Toronto ...” and how black people look in California. One of the suspect’s brothers had “crashed” at Mr. Abdulkadir’s residence, but Mr. Abdulkadir alleges that fact, and noise complaints, are not a basis for criminal charges. [ 8 ] Mr. Abdulkadir also offers what appears to be an alibi, he “... was working at mcdonalds and was dating an asian model from Tokyo ...”. Mr.

Abdulkadir does not name the “asian model” but says she “owned a bank”, so Mr. Abdulkadir had no reason to rob stores. [ 9 ] Mr. Abdulkadir complains he is illegally subject to “conditions and curfew” and an ankle monitor. Mr. Abdulkadir “... demands all of my disclosure ...”. [ 10 ] The Written Submission concludes: I hope no Canadian military travels to Syria fighting for the Canadian navy because there is Canadians that join Isis. The Edmonton police are not doing the right thing. ...

The lives of the Canadian navy is unsafe in Syria, as well as Canadians who are unlawfully charged.(sic) [ 11 ] After review of Mr. Abdulkadir’s Written Submission, I conclude that the Written Submission is unresponsive to the prima facie defects identified in Abdulkadir #1 . Mr. Abdulkadir has answered neither of the two questions in Abdulkadir #1 . [ 12 ] Further, none of the narrative information in Mr. Abdulkadir’s Written Submission is admissible in a CPN7 proceeding. CPN7 is a mechanism to conduct r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court proceedings.

Rule 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court prohibits parties introducing evidence where that evidence is in relation to whether a filing “... discloses no reasonable claim or defence to a claim ...”: r 3.68(2)(

b) of the Alberta Rules of Court . In short, the Alberta Rules of Court do not permit Mr. Abdulkadir to expand on his claims, or provide evidence allegedly relevant to those claims during a CPN7 procedure. [ 13 ] Additionally, none of Mr. Abdulkadir’s new and expanded claims relate to the Defendant. Mr. Abdulkadir alleges wrongdoing by the Calgary and Edmonton Police Services, and Premier Kenney, but not the Crown.

[ 14 ] In light of these factors, I conclude Mr. Abdulkadir has not responded to the fatal defects identified in Abdulkadir #1 , and that the Court may now rule on the potential merit of Mr. Abdulkadir’s Statement of Claim.

Pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court and CPN7, para 3(c), the Statement of Claim in Action No. 2103 15027 is struck out as an abuse of the Court. [ 15 ] No costs flow from this outcome since this Court does not usually order costs when the Clerk of the Court refers an AVAP pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 565 at para 6 . [ 16 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Mr. Abdulkadir’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 15 th day of November, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Said Abdulkadir Self-represented Litigant