OKEKE v OAKES

The Appellant was arrested at his rental unit for assault with a weapon and remained in custody for four months. Upon his release, he discovered that someone else was occupying his rental unit and that his personal belongings were missing. He sued the Calgary Police Service and several officers, his former landlord, and the Minister of Justice of Alberta, alleging wrongful dispossession and failure to secure his property. His claim was summarily dismissed against the Calgary Police Respondents under Rule 7.3 and was struck against the Minister and the landlord under Rule 3.68(2)(b). On appeal, he challenged these Decisions, arguing that they were unreasonable and contrary to natural law and common law principles.

The Court upheld the Summary Dismissal under Rule 7.3, which permits the Court to determine whether a case can be fairly resolved without a Trial or if there remains a genuine issue requiring adjudication. Applying the test established in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49, the Chambers Justice found no genuine issue requiring a Trial. The Calgary Police Respondents presented uncontroverted evidence that they had not seized the Appellant’s belongings, and the Chambers Justice declined to infer otherwise. The Court found no reviewable error in this reasoning and affirmed that Summary Dismissal was appropriate.

With respect to the claims against the Minister and the landlord, the Court applied Rule 3.68(2)(b), which allows for pleadings to be struck if they disclose no reasonable claim. The Chambers Justice assumed the facts as pleaded to be true but found that the Appellant’s allegations were speculative and unsupported by any specific assertions that the Minister or landlord had taken, retained, or disposed of his property. Citing Alberta v Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24, the Court reiterated that a claim must not be “plainly and obviously” incapable of success. Since the Appellant failed to establish a legal basis for his claims, the Court upheld the Decision to strike them.

Additionally, the Court determined that the Appeal should proceed in writing pursuant to Rule 14.32(2), which allows a single Judge to direct that an Appeal be decided without oral argument. The Appellant did not provide submissions contesting this direction, and the Court found it appropriate to proceed based on written materials.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal, finding no error in the Chamber Judge’s application of the Rules. As a result, it did not need to address the Appellant’s Application for advanced Costs and disclosure.