AMEX Bank of Canada v Vincent, 2023 ABKB 126

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: AMEX Bank of Canada v Vincent, 2023 ABKB 126 Date: 20230303 Docket: 2212 00388 Registry: Wetaskiwin Between: AMEX Bank of Canada Plaintiff - and - Dianne Vincent also known as Dianne H. Vincent Defendant _______________________________________________________ AVAP NOTICE of Associate Chief Justice K.G.

Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On November 14, 2022, AMEX Bank of Canada (AMEX) filed a Statement of Claim seeking judgment in the amount of $16,297.06 and costs on a solicitor/client basis, or alternatively on a party and party basis. AMEX alleges that Ms. Vincent defaulted in payments on her credit card, which she agreed to pay pursuant to the terms and conditions of an AMEX Cardmember Agreement. [ 2 ] On November 29, 2022, Ms. Vincent filed a Statement of Defence. The Statement of Defence is brief. Under facts relied on Ms.

Vincent merely indicates “Royal Decree #38 – Debt Forgiveness/Cancelation (sic) of All Financial Obligations for All Canadians”,

as well as a website address. Under matters that defeat the plaintiff’s claim, she also indicates “Royal Decree #38 – DebtForgiveness/Cancelation of All Financial Obligations for All Canadians.” As a remedy, Ms. Vincent seeks debt forgiveness/cancelation(sic) of card in the sum of $16,297.06 and costs of the action. [3] On January 3, 2023, AMEX requested that I review the Statement of Defence as an Apparently Vexatious Application orProceeding (AVAP), pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7 (CPN7). [4] CPN7 sets out

summary procedures to be followed, using Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 for a“claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process”,in other words, Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (AVAPs). I am the judge assigned to review AVAPs throughoutAlberta. [5] I have reviewed the Statement of Defence, which, on its face, appears to be potentially frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse ofprocess because it has elements that Courts have said indicate frivolous, vexatious, or abusive proceedings.

This means that I havedecided Ms. Vincent must file a Written Submission setting out why her Statement of Defence should not be struck out because ofsignificant problems. [6] By pleading and relying on “Royal Decree #38 – Debt Forgiveness/Cancelation of All Financial Obligations for AllCanadians” the Defendant is using tactics the Courts often see used by Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.Such tactics have no legal effect and are indicators that the litigant using such tactics may be vexatious. [7] Similar vexatious tactics are described in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. [8] Ms.

Vincent must provide a Written Submission to the Court. That Written Submission must address the following: How isthis not an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding? The following questions must be answered in the Written Submission: 1. How does “Royal Decree #38 – Debt Forgiveness/Cancelation of All Financial Obligations for All Canadians” apply to thisAction? 2. How does “Royal Decree #38 – Debt Forgiveness/Cancelation of All Financial Obligations for All Canadians” provide a defence toAMEX’s claim? [9] The next steps are as follows: 1) The Clerk will file and serve this Notice on Ms. Vincent. 2) Ms.

Vincent must prepare a Written Submission of no more than 10 pages. She must file and serve the Written Submission within14 days after receiving the Notice. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G.Nielsen” and it must be served on all other parties in the Action. 3) If Ms. Vincent does not file and serve a Written Submission by the deadline, the Court will make a final decision on whether theStatement of Defence should be struck out in whole or in part under Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. 4) If Ms.

Vincent does file and serve a Written Submission, AMEX has seven days to provide a Written Reply of up to 10 pages. TheWritten Reply must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen” and must be served on all otherparties in the action. 5) Once the Court receives Ms.

Vincent’s Written Submission (if any) and AMEX’s Written Reply (if any), the Court will make afinal decision on whether the Statement of Defence should be struck out in whole or in part under Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules ofCourt. [10] The case mentioned in this Notice, as well as the Alberta Rules of Court, can be accessed for free on [11] I encourage Ms. Vincent to seek legal advice and assistance. If she cannot afford to hire a lawyer, she may wish to contactEdmonton Community Legal Centre for assistance, at (780) 702-1725, or Student Legal Services of Edmonton, at (780) 492-2226.

Forinformation or assistance filing documents, she may wish to contact the Resolution and Court Administration Services Contact Centre, at1-855-738-4747. [12] Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2212 00388 is stayed until further notice. Counsel for AMEX will prepare andserve the Interim Order staying this Action. Ms. Vincent’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(

c) of theAlberta Rules of Court. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3rd day of March, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances by Submissions: Mark Lieberman Kronis, Rotsztain, Margles, Cappel LLP Counsel for AMEX Bank of Canada Dianne H. Vincent – no appearance