Kard v Legal Aid Society of Alberta, 2022 ABKB 676

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Kard v Legal Aid Society of Alberta, 2022 ABKB 676 Date: 20221013 Docket: 2203 10410 Registry: Edmonton Between: Dorothy Kard Plaintiff - and - Legal Aid Alberta, Jennifer Costigan - Managing Director, Douglas McLachlan - Lawyer, Scott Hammond - Lawyer Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 7, 2022, Dorothy Kard (Ms.

Kard), filed a Statement of Claim that names Legal Aid Alberta, Jennifer Costigan, Douglas McLachlin, and Scott Hammond as the Defendants (Defendants). The correct name of the Defendant, Legal Aid Alberta, is the Legal Aid Society of Alberta (Legal Aid Alberta). The Statement of Claim indicates all three individual Defendants are employees of Legal Aid Alberta. [ 2 ] Briefly, the Statement of Claim alleges misconduct in relation to legal support provided by Legal Aid Alberta to Ms. Kard in a family subject dispute. Ms. Kard sought $8 million on that basis.

[ 3 ] On August 5, 2022, Counsel for the Legal Aid Alberta and the other Defendants, by letter, referred the Statement of Claim for review as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. In a Memorandum of Decision reported as Kard v Legal Aid Society of Alberta , 2022 ABKB 624 ( Kard #1 ), I concluded that the Statement of Claim is an AVAP and should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . Ms.

Kard was instructed to provide an up to ten-page Written Submission to explain: 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 barred by sections 4(1-2) of the Legal Profession Act; 3) why the Statement of Claim is not premature, and not an abuse of process; and 4) why the remedies sought in the Statement of Claim are not excessive and/or impossible? ( Kard #1 at para 31 .) [ 4 ] The deadline for Ms. Kard’s Written Submission has passed. Nothing has been received from Ms. Kard. I, therefore, conclude Ms.

Kard has not rebutted the fatal defects identified in Kard #1 . Pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court and CPN7, para 3(c), the Statement or Claim is struck out as an abuse of the Court and the Defendants. [ 5 ] 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

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court , and the quantum of damages sought by Ms. Kard in her Statement of Claim, I order Ms. Kard pay the Defendants, collectively, $1,000 in costs, forthwith. [ 6 ] Counsel for the Defendants will prepare the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Ms. Kard’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 13 th day of October, 2022. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by submissions: Jennifer E. Halloran Kingsgate Legal for the Defendants