LAIRD v ALBERTA (TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD), 2019 ABQB 567
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Court was asked by the Defendant, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (“ASIRT”), to engage Civil Practice Note 7 which allows the Court to evaluate whether a Statement of Claim represents an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). The Plaintiff, Laird, alleged in the Statement of Claim that he had been a victim of hundreds of unprovoked attacks by the police including numerous unwarranted arrests.
The Court considered Laird’s Statement of Claim and concluded there were multiple problems with it that could be grounds for dismissal under Rule 3.68. The Statement of Claim did not provide enough information to allow the Defendants to respond to it; the details and specifics of the allegations were either absent or severely lacking. Moreover, the Statement of Claim appeared to be hopeless in numerous respects. Many of Laird’s claims could be considered highly improbable, absurd, or hyperbole.
The Court concluded that a review pursuant to Civil Practice Note 7 was warranted. Laird was invited to make written submissions within 14 days as to why the Statement of Claim should not be struck. Following receipt of those written submissions and those of the Defendant’s, the Court confirmed that it would then evaluate whether to strike the Statement of Claim following an analysis of Rule 3.68.View CanLII Details