PEETS v ALBERTA (JUSTICE & SOLICITOR GENERAL), 2019 ABQB 507
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
The Plaintiff, David Andrew Peets (“Mr. Peets”), filed a Statement of Claim (the “Claim”) against Alberta Justice. The Claim was brought to the attention of Associate Chief Justice Nielsen pursuant to paragraph 5 of Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”) for review as a possible Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”).
Under CPN7, if, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(s) which may be a basis to apply under Rule 3.68 to strike out the filing.
The Claim asserted, among other things that, that Mr. Peets was unlawfully incarcerated without lawful excuse and received cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Criminal Code and the Charter, for which Mr. Peets sought $25 million in damages.
Nielsen A.C.J. found that the Claim may have been an AVAP for a number of reasons, including: (1) the Claim did not appear to provide a basis for the Defendants and Court to respond; (2) while Mr. Peets indicated that many of his Charter rights were breached, the Claim did not indicate the facts of those alleged breaches; and (3) the Claim sought impossible or disproportionate remedies.
Accordingly, Nielsen A.C.J. ordered that Mr. Peets had 14 days after the date of the Decision to file and serve written submissions pursuant to para 3(b) of CPN7. His Lordship further ordered that the Court would prepare and serve the interim Order staying the Action and that Mr. Peets’ approval of that Order was not required pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).View CanLII Details