BIGNALL v CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL), 2026 ABKB 668

The Plaintiff commenced an Action against the Attorney General of Canada seeking $900 million in damages, $100 in punitive damages, and declaratory relief. The Defendant asked the Court to review the Statement of Claim pursuant to Civil Practice Note 7 (“CPN7”).

CPN7 uses Rule 3.68 to permit a summary assessment of:

“a claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.”

Nixon A.C.J. noted that Rule 3.68 allows the Court to summarily identify and dismiss meritless claims with no prospect of success, conserving judicial resources.

The Plaintiff had previously commenced a related Action against the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Alberta that was reviewed through the CPN7 process. After the Plaintiff amended the Claim to remove those Defendants and substitute the Calgary Police Service, the Court treated the Amended Statement of Claim as a continuation of the original Action and continued the CPN7 review of the claims against all Defendants.

The Court had issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”) Notice after finding that the first Action was unlikely to succeed due to jurisdictional, evidentiary, pleading, and damages concerns. Rather than addressing those concerns, the Plaintiff commenced a new Action, which the Court viewed as a possible attack on its process and prior directions.

The Court considered the present Statement of Claim together with the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim in the earlier Action because the pleadings contained similar and repetitive allegations. The Court did not finally strike either pleading. Instead, it issued an AVAP Notice and established a written process before deciding whether Rule 3.68 should apply. The Plaintiff received 14 days after service to file written submissions of no more than 10 pages. The Defendants could then file written replies of up to 10 pages within seven days.

When considering whether the pleadings should be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68, Nixon A.C.J. recognized that pleaded facts are typically presumed true. However, the Court stated that this principle has limits where allegations are unbelievable and supported only by suspicion or speculation. The Court directed the Plaintiff to identify specific facts supporting the alleged surveillance and profiling and to explain the Court’s jurisdiction over alleged Charter claims. The Plaintiff was also directed to distinguish the new Action from the earlier Action, explain how unrelated grievances justified the use of Court resources, and justify the damages claimed.