Mennes v Alberta, 2022 ABKB 763

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Mennes v Alberta, 2022 ABKB 763 Date: 20221117 Docket: 2201 10319 Registry: Calgary Between: Frieda Anne Mennes Plaintiff - and - Alberta Government, Alberta Ministry of Education, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, Alberta Minister of Education Adriana LaGrange Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On October 3, 2022, Counsel for the Defendants (correctly named His Majesty the King in right of Alberta, the Minister of Education, Premier Jason Kenney, and Minister Adriana LaGrange), referred, by letter, a Statement of Claim filed by Frieda Anne

Mennes [Ms. Mennes] as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications 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. CPN7 is a document-based “show cause” procedure to evaluate potentially problematic litigation steps and filings. [ 2 ] Ms. Mennes’ September 12, 2022 Statement of Claim indicates a range of alleged misconduct. As I understand its content, Ms. Mennes’ claims relate to an Alberta Teachers’ Association [ATA] disciplinary process where Ms. Mennes was sanctioned. Ms.

Mennes, globally, categorizes that process and its result as illegal, false, corrupt, defamatory, and criminal. Some of the specific criticisms Ms. Mennes makes are that materials in the ATA disciplinary process were forged, including transcripts. Ms. Mennes was apparently self-represented in the ATA disciplinary proceeding. She claims the Defendants have an obligation to provide a lawyer for “... any teacher accused of something. ...”, and failure to do so is “discrimination”, and lawyer representation is necessary, “... so corruption is not prevalent. ...”. [ 3 ] Emerging from that larger criticism, Ms.

Mennes makes the following specific allegations concerning the Defendants: • Premier Jason Kenney : failed to respond to emails from Ms. Mennes, and did not adequately monitor and/or correct the ATA disciplinary process and outcome. • Minister of Education Adriana LaGrange : ignored evidence that the ATA process was corrupt, thus making Minister LaGrange corrupt as well. Generally, Ms.

Mennes alleges the Minister failed to hire appropriate persons as superintendents, and failed in her duties since “... [s]he allowed and participated in retaliation, hate, and a principal to continue working and file a dishonest misconduct with the ATA.” • The Government of Alberta : failed to protect Ms.

Mennes “... from a dishonest employer ...”, which breached and/or ignored Criminal Code ss 131, 139, 140, and 368, “Constitutional Rights”, “Human Rights”, the “Canadain Bill of Rights” [sic], the “Canadian Human Rights Act”, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , and “... allowed hate to prevail ...”. • Alberta Ministry of Education : the Statement of Claim does not appear to make specific allegations against this Defendant. [ 4 ] On these bases, Ms. Mennes seeks personal remedies that include: 1. $10 million in damages for:

a) loss of reputation;

b) litigation/dispute related expenses;

c) damages and costs associated with preparing her dispute materials and submissions; d) “... loss of enjoyment of the life I should have had these past three years ...”; and e) “... living in fear daily as to what other horrible letters the ATA will send ...”; 2. the Court vacate fines “... obtained via fraud and theft from a corrupt hearing ...”, and return seized funds; 3. removal of “forged and untruthful” charges, and “all content” published by the ATA about Ms. Mennes; and 4. the Court restore Ms. Mennes’ professional accreditation. [ 5 ] Ms.

Mennes’ Statement of Claim also demands a number of broader steps for Albertan teachers, including: “... clean out the ATA top people ...”, and criminal charges against the ATA President, Minister LaGrange, and other officials involved in the investigation of Ms. Mennes. Ms. Mennes concludes: For all Albertans involved in education the Alberta Government needs to hire an education minister that cares for all citizens and cares about the truth and will go the extra mile to investigate if someone asks for help. A minister that caress for safe and productive workplaces. [Sic.] [ 6 ] After review of Ms.

Mennes’ Statement of Claim, I concluded in a decision reported as Mennes v Alberta , 2022 ABKB 666 [ Mennes #1 ] that Ms. Mennes Statement of Claim exhibits potentially fatal defects, and therefore is a suitable candidate for review as an AVAP by the CPN7 show-cause document-based procedure. Ms.

Mennes was instructed to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission that answered seven questions: 1. how the Statement of Claim provides a basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response; 2. how the Statement of Claim is not a prohibited collateral attacks on ATA disciplinary proceedings; 3. how the Statement of Claim is not an abusive premature proceeding; 4. how elected politicians are potentially liable for operation of a disciplinary scheme created by legislation and conducted by a separate authority, the Alberta Teachers’ Association; 5. why Teaching Profession Act s 63 does not negate potential liability for allegations made in the Statement of Claim; 6. why the Statement of Claim is not abusive busybody litigation; and 7. why the Statement of Claim does not seek excessive and/or impossible remedies?

[ Mennes #1 at para 32] . [ 7 ] A Written Submission was received from Ms. Mennes on October 20, 2022. No Written Reply has been received from the Defendants. That completes the CPN7 process. This Decision now determines whether Ms. Mennes’ Statement of Claim should be struck out, in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . II. Ms. Mennes’ Submission [ 8 ] Ms. Mennes rejects that her Statement of Claim is inappropriate, abusive, or vexatious. Her position is that her lawsuit is a valid and proper legal position. Ms.

Mennes first reviews her personal and teaching history, and says these establish she is a citizen of good character. Her Written Submission reviews disciplinary proceeding events in 2016 onward through to 2022. She stresses the bad treatment she has experienced at the hands of the ATA and that her union failed to defend her. The Plaintiff explains how she directly submitted materials to the Minister of Education, but those were ignored. [ 9 ] Ms. Mennes continues to respond to the questions posed in Mennes #1 . First, Ms.

Mennes argues that if her Statement of Claim failed to provide a basis for a meaningful response, then the Defendants should have requested “further or better pleadings”, that she would supply. Ms. Mennes goes into some details on alleged additional relevant information in relation to pleadings. For example, she says part of her evidence in support of her forgeries allegation was the Superintendent had admitted “he created the collage and it is in the transcripts.” [ 10 ] The Written Submission next explains why the Statement of Claim is not a collateral attack. Ms.

Mennes writes: My Statement of Claim is not a collateral attack on the ATA disciplinary proceeding because I was retaliated against when I was accused of misconduct. Being referred for an investigation by the ATA is a viable claim of unlawful reprisal. The fundamental policy behind the doctrine of collateral attack is to maintain the rule of law and to preserve the repute of the administration of justice. My lawsuit is not with the ATA. ...

My Statement of claim is not a collateral attack on the ATA disciplinary proceeding as it is a Statement of Claim against the Alberta Government, Premier Kenney, the Ministry of Education, and the Minister of Education Adriana LaGrange who allowed the 2022 ATA publication of gross libelous content because they did not investigate the ATA corruption when I asked for help. The Alberta Government failed to seek the truth and in doing so, my reputation is destroyed by what they allowed to be published. [ 11 ] Ms.

Mennes continues, as I understand it, that tribunal proceedings are an inferior forum, and no issues were determined by a court. She also alleges that the ATA disciplinary proceedings against her were illegally private, procedurally unfair, unreasonable, ignored evidence, in bad faith, biased, and criminal. Her says that her rights to a fair process are protected by

section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . She says the fact that the ATA proceedings were illegal is directly the fault of the Defendants: “Common law principals are that all persons subjected to government action are treated fairly.” The Alberta government that Premier Kenney led, the Ministry of Education, which the Alberta Government is responsible for lead by the Minister of Education Adriana LaGrange, did not treat me fairly. The ATA, the body they are responsible for, did not treat me fairly [ 12 ] The Written Submission also states Ms. Mennes’ Charter s 11(

d) right to a presumption of innocence, and Charter s 12 right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment were breached. Ms. Mennes concludes, in relation to the collateral attack question, Mr. Mennes had a right to ask a court for a remedy, and so her litigation is valid. [ 13 ] As for how the Defendants are liable, Ms. Mennes says this is a chain of command question. For example, the Minister of Education is responsible for providing educational services in Alberta. That makes her directly in control of all subordinate processes: “...

She can change anything within education.” That makes the Minister of Education responsible for the ATA proceedings. Similarly, former Premier Jason Kenney was elected as Premier of Alberta. That makes him responsible for subject matters that fall within the Province’s authority. Ms. Mennes observes that the Defendants appoint persons involved in teachers’ professional conduct. That makes the Defendants responsible for what happened to Ms. Mennes: Minister of Education, Adriana LaGrange is most certainly liable. She even stated it is her moral obligation. It is her legal obligation too.

She knew there were problems with the ATA disciplinary process, yet still did not help me when I mentioned corruption. That is negligence. Premier Kenney and the Alberta Government is most certainly liable for all aspects of education including the ATA. Bill is passed and he knew about the new process for teacher discipline, yet he too neglected to look into my request about the corruption in an ATA investigation, hearings, reports, and charges. That is neglect of the Alberta Government. [Sic.] [ 14 ] Ms. Mennes rejects that her litigation is a busybody proceeding because “...

The additional remedies are exactly that, remedies I hope might happen. ...”. Similarly, Ms. Mennes says that her lawsuit does not seek excessive or impossible remedies, since, for example “... Nowhere in my Statement of facts does it ask the court to press criminal charges on anyone. ...” Instead, Ms. Mennes says she hopes the Defendants will learn about the dishonest and corrupt ATA disciplinary proceedings, “... and ask the police to press charges. ...”. III. Analysis [ 15 ] As a preliminary point, to some degree Ms.

Mennes’ Written Submission expands on her claims and alleged facts found in the Statement of Claim. Rule 3.68(3) explicitly 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). That means, to the degree that Ms. Mennes’ Written Submission expands on her Statement of Claim, I cannot consider those additional alleged facts. A. Inadequate Pleadings [ 16 ] I conclude that Ms. Mennes’ Written Submission is not responsive to the issue of the adequacy of her pleadings. Her argument that if the Defendants needed more information, they could request that, fails to acknowledge the binding authorities in Mennes #1 at paras 11-12 . Adequate pleadings are a precondition for a valid action.

There is no obligation on the part of the Defendants to go out and attempt to expand and/or complete Ms. Mennes’ Statement of Claim: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) , 2015 FCA 227 at para 20 . [ 17 ] I, therefore, conclude that Ms. Mennes has not responded to the prima facie defect of inadequate pleadings. That is the first basis on which I conclude the Statement of Claim should be struck out. B. Collateral Attack and Premature Proceeding [ 18 ] Mennes #1 at paras 18-22 explains that how Ms.

Mennes’ Statement of Claim appears to be a collateral attack on the ATA disciplinary proceeding against her, and that, if Ms. Mennes did disagree with that outcome, then she should have challenged the ATA’s decision and process by judicial review to this Court. [ 19 ] Ms. Mennes actually acknowledges the second point. In her Written Submission, Ms. Mennes describes how this Court possesses an administrative law authority that could have examined what the ATA did. However, Ms.

Mennes did not follow that process and, as the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in Al-Ghamdi v Alberta , 2020 ABCA 81 , leave to appeal to SCC denied, 39389 (25 February 2021), that was a failure to exhaust alternative administrative proceedings, and an abuse of court procedure. Thus, Ms. Mennes’ Statement of Claim is an abusive premature proceeding and should be struck out on that basis. [ 20 ] Second, I conclude that Ms. Mennes has not rebutted that her Statement of Claim is a collateral attack.

Her argument, as I understand it, is that she sued someone other than the ATA, therefore proceedings that involve the ATA are irrelevant. The issue here is that Ms. Mennes misapprehends the scope of collateral attack. Collateral attacks includes a proceeding that re-litigates issues, and so, when Ms. Mennes in her Statement of Claim alleges bias, negligence, criminal misconduct, defamation, and so on, and those claims point to facts and processes in the ATA disciplinary proceeding, then Ms. Mennes’ lawsuit is a collateral attack. That is a further basis on which Ms.

Mennes’ Statement of Claim is an abusive proceeding, and should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68 . C. No Potential Liability [ 21 ] Ms. Mennes’ claims against Premier Kenney and Minister LaGrange appear to be grounded on an allegation of negligence. Mennes #1 at paras 23-24 requested Ms. Mennes identify legal authority for how elected politicians are potentially liable for results of a professional management and certification scheme created by legislation, and why her claims are not blocked by Teaching Profession Act , RSA 2000, c T-2 , ss 63(1)(

a) and 63(2) [ TPA ]. Ms. Mennes’ Written Submission does not respond to the TPA issue, and as I understand her materials, Ms. Mennes says that tort liability is automatically transmitted through a chain of command to senior decision makers. [ 22 ] That is not the law in Canada. In Canada tort liability requires proximity, and then that a duty of care is not negated for policy reasons: Cooper v Hobart , 2001 SCC 79 ; Edwards v Law Society of Upper Canada , 2001 SCC 80 . I requested Ms. Mennes identify an authority to establish proximity and a lack of policy reasons in this instance. None was identified.

This is a further basis on which I conclude Ms. Mennes’ lawsuit is an abuse of court and should be struck out. D. Busybody Litigation [ 23 ] Ms. Mennes argues she has not engaged in busybody litigation when she sought that the Court: “... clean out the ATA top people ...”, and institute criminal charges against the ATA President, Minister LaGrange, and other officials involved in the investigation of Ms. Mennes. In her Written Submission, Ms. Mennes explains that she simply hopes that criminal charges result from her litigation.

Presuming that was, in fact, her objective, then that is another separate basis on which her litigation is an abuse of the Court, because that is litigation for a political purpose. [ 24 ] Litigation is an abuse of the Court where that litigation has a political focus and is directed towards acknowledgement and correction of perceived government shortcomings, rather than asserting a right recognized in law: Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) , 2018 ONCA 32 at paras 23-24 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38057 (1 November 2018); Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 at para 36 ; Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 507 at para 16 , action struck 2019 ABQB 565 , confirmed 2019 ABQB 643 ; Pascal v Trudeau , 2021 ABQB 69 at paras 21-23 , action struck 2021 ABQB 105 at para 20 ; O’Neill v Thomas , 2022 ABQB 352 at para 19-21 , action struck 2022 ABQB 408 .

If Ms. Mennes did not intend that the Court take steps as a consequence of her lawsuit, then the “cleaning out” and criminal proceedings were litigation for a political purpose and where the Court lacks the authority to take those steps. That is a further abuse of the Court. E. Excessive and/or Impossible Remedies [ 25 ] I conclude that Ms. Mennes did not respond to the Mennes #1 at para 27-31 prima facie remedy-related defects. For example, Ms. Mennes simply states what she demands is appropriate since “... no amount of money can undo the damage that I have had to forgo these past years. ...”.

That may be her opinion, but that is not the law in Canada. I conclude that Ms. Mennes has not established that her

remedies claims are legal, and that is another separate and independent basis on which I strike out this lawsuit. IV. Conclusion [ 26 ] I have concluded that Ms. Mennes has not rebutted the fatal defects identified in Mennes #1 . I, therefore, pursuant to Rule 3.68 and CPN7, para 3(c), order that the Docket No. 2201 10319 Statement of Claim is struck out as an abuse of the Court and the Defendants on multiple, independent bases. [ 27 ] 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(

s) who initiated or 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. In light of: 1. there are four related Defendants in this matter; 2. Ms. Mennes sought $10 million and various impossible remedies; 3. and

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court , I order Ms. Mennes pay the Defendants, collectively, $5,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 28 ] Counsel for the Defendants will prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Ms. Mennes approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the corresponding Order shall be served upon Ms. Mennes to her email address indicated in her Written Submission: bouvs4m3@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 17 th day of November, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Frieda Anne Mennes Self-represented Litigant Andrea M. Simmonds Legal Services Division Civil Law - Litigation for the Defendants