Davidson v Alberta (Alberta Health Services), 2021 ABQB 942

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Davidson v Alberta (Alberta Health Services), 2021 ABQB 942 Date: 20211125 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On August 9, 2021, Michele Marie Davidson [Ms.

Davidson] filed a 41-page Amended Statement of Claim that named Alberta Health Services [AHS], and the Medicine Hat Hospital [Hospital] as Defendants, seeking $25 million in damages. 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.

[ 2 ] After review of Ms. Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim, I concluded, in a decision reported as Davidson v Alberta Health Services , 2021 ABQB 886 [ Davidson #1 ], that the Amended Statement of Claim exhibited multiple prima facie fatal defects, and, therefore, should be subject to a document-based show-cause procedure. Davidson #1 invited Ms.

Davidson to submit an up to ten-page Written Submission to explain how the Amended 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 decisions of 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. [ Davidson #1 at para 44 .] [ 3 ] The deadline for Ms. Davidson to make a Written Submission has passed. No response has been received. I, therefore, conclude that Ms. Davidson has not rebutted the Davidson #1 prima facie conclusion that the Amended Statement of Claim is a hopeless and abusive proceeding. Accordingly, I order the Docket 2108 00225 Amended Statement of Claim is struck out, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(

c) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 3.68 . [ 4 ] 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 litigant who referred the matter to the Court: 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. [ 5 ] Ms.

Davidson’s Amended Statement of Claim incorporated Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ) claims that are so notoriously false that simply employing these schemes creates a presumption that a person appears in court for a bad-faith, ulterior purpose: Davidson #1 at para 23 . Furthermore, Ms. Davidson attempted to interfere in the medical treatment of another individual on the basis of OPCA concepts, and the proclamation that she owns her adult child as chattel property.

The latter claim that is repugnant to modern Canadian society, values, and law: Davidson #1 at paras 24-25 . [ 6 ] Taking into account

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court , the $25 million quantum of Ms. Davidson’s claims, and the aggravating characteristics of Ms. Davidson’s abusive litigation conduct identified above, I order Ms. Davidson pay each of the two Defendants $2,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 7 ] Counsel for the Defendants will prepare the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Davidson’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). 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: Patrick J. Heinsen Borden Ladner Gerais LLP for the Defendants Alberta Health Services and Medicine Hat Hospital