JORDAN v ALBERTA LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAMS, 2013 ABQB 330
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
A Constable of the Calgary Police Services was assigned to monitor the Plaintiff in relation to criminal harassment allegations. Fifteen months later, the Plaintiff sent an email to the Alberta Premier and certain individuals within the Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program (“MEP”), which included allegations that the MEP caused suicides and murder-suicides. The Constable received a copy of the email and requested that the Integrated Threat and Risk Assessment Centre undertake a threat assessment with respect to the Plaintiff (the “Report”). Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff was charged with criminal harassment. The Plaintiff commenced an Action allegingthat the Report was defamatory and that the Defendants acted with misfeasance in the exercise of their public office duties. The Defendants applied for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim or, in the alternative, for an Order striking the Statement of Claim.
With respect to the allegation of defamation, Yamauchi J. held that the Applicants were not required to demonstrate that the Report was not defamatory. Rather, they were only required to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue to be tried, and Yamauchi J. held that they discharged this burden. Yamauchi J. further held that the Plaintiff failed to meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue for Trial with respect to whether the Defendants had defamed him.Yamauchi J. granted the Application for Summary Judgment.
The Defendants argued in the alternative that the Court should strike the Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68, on the basis that the Claim was vexatious. The Plaintiff had commenced seven other Actions, arising out of the same facts, against various individuals and organizations. Relying on the reasoning in McMeekin v Alberta (Attorney-General), 2012 ABQB 144, Yamauchi J. held that, although Summary Judgment had been granted, the Claim would also be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Plaintiff’s Claim was frivolous, vexatious and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.View CanLII Details