The Plaintiff, Michael Woitt (“Mr. Woitt”) filed an “Amended Statement of Claim” naming Alberta Health Services as the Defendant. The Court’s file did not include an earlier original filed Statement of Claim. Subsequently, Mr. Woitt filed a “Statement of Claim” that named Alberta Mental Health Board (the “Board”) as the Defendant. Other than the difference in the named Defendant, the two documents were identical save for the numbering of certain paragraphs, and other minor textual variations.   

Counsel for the Board wrote to the Court, per paragraph 6 of Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”), requesting a review of Mr. Woitt’s Statement of Claim, indicating that the filing appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process (an “AVAP”). The Court concluded that Mr. Woitt’s pleadings did appear to be hopeless litigation, as the pleadings: (1) did not provide a basis for the responding parties to make a meaningful response; and (2) were disproportionate and excessive. Per the CPN7 procedure, Mr. Woitt had 14 days to make a written submission of no more than 10 pages to explain why his litigation has a basis in law and should not be struck out per Rule 3.68 (the “AVAP Response”).

Justice Thomas reviewed the 10 pages provided by Mr. Woitt in the AVAP Response and concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the claims were an abuse of the Court’s processes, and should be struck out per Rule 3.68. Justice Thomas found that the litigation was based predominantly on mental health issues, and the resulting delusion and distorted perceptions. As such, His Lordship declined to order Costs against Mr. Woitt but did recommend to Mr. Woitt that, to avoid unfavourable Cost awards and Court access restrictions, Mr. Woitt should, prior to initiating any future litigation, first consult with public legal assistance resources.

Justice Thomas concluded by ordering counsel for Alberta Health Services to prepare a Court Order giving effect to this decision and that Mr. Woitt’s approval of the form and content of that Order was not required, per Rule 9.4(2)(c).