Saunders v Royal Bank of Canada, 2021 ABQB 941

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Saunders v Royal Bank of Canada, 2021 ABQB 941 Date: 20211125 Docket: 2101 11671 Registry: Calgary Between: Stephanie Saunders Plaintiff - and - Royal Bank of Canada Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On September 23, 2021, Stephanie Saunders [Ms. Saunders] filed a Statement of Claim that named the Royal Bank of Canada [RBC] as the Defendant, and that sought $1,048,000 in damages. Ms.

Saunders subsequently, on October 27, 2021, filed an Amended Statement of Claim that added an additional paragraph, and that increased the damages quantum almost ten-fold to

$10,045,000. The body of the Amended Statement of Claim reads: Statement of facts relied on: 1. The bank manager of the Aspen landing branch number #836 (Kyle.

M) Randomly froze my savings accounts. He brought me in for a private meeting in which he refused to speak to me in front of the other employees but took me to a backroom. He proceeded to say that he was going take all the money out of my account. He treated me like a child an even asked if "I was qualified" to have this much money in my account. The amount total to no more than $2200, he then proceeded to spend at least 45 minutes scolding me about my unworthiness. I don't know him and it was a very bizarre experience.

He said he would unfreeze my account but he withdrew $2100 and transferred it to a random TD Bank account via the RBC investigation results. RBC did an investigation but refused to return my finances. The security team told me they were not supposed to talk to me and avoided telling me what was happening. He took the funds out of my account on January 5th 2021. 2. I suffered tremendously as I am a disabled university student, not physically just mentally. The bank manager did not know this. I had to starve for a month until my next paycheck.

I was forced to perform, maintaining a 3.8 GPA and power through school with schizophrenia, having no food and threatened rent security. I don't have a car so I couldn't go to the food bank and I didn't want to tell my parents about this because they expect me to be a functioning adult. 3. I met with another bank manager from the Signal hill branch #563, by the name of Santiago Alvarez. We spoke via zoom and communicated by email about the issue of having my funds withdrawn and opening a line of credit. He promised to look into it but then cut all communication with me like everybody else.

I contacted an advisor over the phone and he said there was a note on my account saying they couldn't say anything about what was happening. I did not get the line of credit to make up for the funds I was missing and I had to suffer, having all of my saved up rent and food money taken away for me. Remedy sought 4. Monetary $45,000 in University Tuition, $10,045,000 in emotional and psychological damages, and future hospital health care bill coverage. 5. All court fees and application fee reimbursed 6.

The bank manager (Kyle M.) to be persecuted and charged with theft [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 2 ] Counsel for RBC, on November 19, 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. Saunder’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 [ 3 ] 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 ]. [ 4 ] 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. [ 5 ] 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 [ 6 ] The Amended Statement of Claim exhibits a number of issues. A. Inadequate Pleadings [ 7 ] An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing 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 para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015FCA 227 at paras 16-20 [Mancuso]. Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, andindicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso at para 19. [8] Ms.

Saunders cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendant 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 v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. [9] Some aspects of the events Ms. Saunders alleges in her Amended Statement of Claim are detailed. She describes what sheappears to consider inappropriate communications by a “Kyle M.”, and that Kyle M. took $2,100 out of an unidentified bank account onJanuary 5, 2021.

However, other aspects of this allegation are simply bald allegations. She says funds were “transferred” to “... a randomTD Bank account via the RBC investigation results. ...” What does “RBC investigation results” mean? Was there one account, or more?Ms. Saunders references “savings accounts” in paragraph 1 of the Amended Statement of Claim. The account(

s) are unidentified. Howdid Ms. Saunders know that the $2,100 ended up in “a random TD Bank account”? What does that mean? Was there a payment? Somekind of inter-bank transfer? Ms. Saunders says there was “an investigation”, and communications with a “security team”. What does thatmean? Was that about Kyle M., or something else? [10] The liability concerning “Santiago Alvarez” is also unclear. When did Ms. Saunders communicate with Santiago Alvarez? IsSantiago Alvarez the “advisor” referenced in paragraph 3, or someone else? What legal right does Ms. Saunders have to demand a line ofcredit from RBC?

The Alvarez allegations were added to the Amended Statement of Claim, and that document claims nearly ten-fold “...in emotional and psychological damages, and future hospital health care bill coverage.” How is that large increase of damages related tothe line of credit events? [11] Both the original and Amended Statement of Claim demand $45,000 for “University Tuition”? Why is RBC liable in law topay Ms. Saunders’ university tuition? Where does the $1,045,000 or $10,045,000 damages amount for “emotional and psychologicaldamages” come from? Ms.

Saunders’ Amended Statement of Claim makes a bald allegation for “future health care bill coverage”, butthe Amended Statement of Claim does not describe any anticipated future health care, or in what way RBC’s alleged misappropriation offunds would lead to medical injury. [12] I therefore request that Ms. Saunders explain how her Amended Statement of Claim provides the “who, when, where, howand what” that would permit the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response to Ms. Saunders’ allegations. B.

Excessive and Impossible Claims [13] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Ms. Saunders describes misappropriation of $2,100 from one or more bank accounts. If that theft occurred, then Ms. Saunderswould have a basis to claim $2,100. [14] I have already indicated that Ms. Saunders Amended Statement of Claim provides no apparent basis for much larger amounts.There is no explanation of why RBC owes Ms. Saunders $45,000 in university tuition. The “future hospital health care bill” ishypothetical, and Ms.

Saunders makes no indication of why she would require very large sums for medical treatment that is aconsequence of the theft of $2,100. [15] The basis for Ms. Saunders’ “emotional and psychological damages” claim is not clearly articulated. She seems to claimdiscomfort and distress over a one-month period until her next paycheque due to food and accommodation issues. As best as I candetermine, the “emotional and psychological damages” component of Ms. Saunders’ damages claim is what legally is classified as“general damages”.

The maximum amount of general damages that may be claimed was set in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 [Andrews] at $100,000. After inflation, the Andrews general damages cap isnow about $365,000. Ms. Davidson’s claim exceeds that maximum many fold. [16] 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. Ms. Saunders does not indicate any physical injury at all.

That means what Ms.Saunders alleges does not appear to match the criteria for injuries that could potentially warrant a claim that approaches the $365,000amount, let alone $10 million. I request Ms. Saunders indicate why the Amended Statement of Claim damage amounts are notimpossible or excessive. IV. Conclusion [17] Ms. Saunders’ Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable candidate for review per CPN7. The Court, therefore, seeks thatMs.

Saunders answer how the Statement of Claim is not an abuse of the Court: 1. by not providing a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendant, and 2. seeking remedies that are impossible or excessive. [18] As a result of this analysis, I order that Ms. Saunder’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 11671 AmendedStatement of Claim is stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step.

1. Ms. Saunders 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 Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Ms.

Saunders provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendant 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. Saunders’ Written Submission, and the Defendant’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Docket 2101 11671 Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 19 ] The Court will prepare the Order staying this Action. Ms.

Saunders approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the interim stay Order may be served on Ms. Saunders by the email address provided on her Amended Statement of Claim: s.amelia.div@outlook.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 25 th day of November, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Robyn High DLA Piper (Canada) LLP for the Defendant Royal Bank of Canada