Mcmeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., 2012 ABQB 144

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 17, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 144;(2012), 537 A.R. 136 (QB)

Mcmeekin v. Alta. (A.G.) (2012), 537 A.R. 136 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MR.088

Greg Mcmeekin (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Alberta/Crown Prosecutor's Office Edmonton, A. Harriet, C. Lim, Tim Hurlburt, Kerry Whittaker, Counsel for the Crown and Attorney General's Office of Alberta, Criminal and Civil Divisions, the Edmonton Humane Society, Shawna Randolph, Dr. Karen Lange, Lisa Callas, Deb Pope, Valerie E. Kensett, Holy Mcbride, Carolee Hofman, S/Cst Grandysh, Stepanie McDonald and John Doe's of the Edmonton Humane Society, Global T.V. Edmonton & National, Canwest Productions, Shaw Media, C.B.C. (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and its subsidiary C.B.C. Northbeat (defendants)

(1203 01711; 2012 ABQB 144)

Indexed As: Mcmeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

March 7, 2012.

Summary:

Mcmeekin commenced the first action against the Attorney General of Alberta, Crown prosecutors, the Edmonton Humane Society and its employees. He alleged that the Humane Society had given the prosecution false information which resulted in a charge against Mcmeekin of causing or permitting an animal to be in distress. He was not allowed to file a revised statement of claim. Mcmeekin then struck out the word "revised" and filed a statement of claim commencing the second action. Mcmeekin added as parties, among others, lawyers who had defended the first action. There was an application to strike pending in the first action before the Master. The Attorney General of Alberta and the lawyers (the applicants) applied to strike out the statement of claim in the second action. Mcmeekin cross-applied for summary judgment.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck the statement of claim in the second action, as it related to the applicants, pursuant to rule 3.68. The court dismissed Mcmeekin's cross-application. A portion of the statement of claim was an abuse of the process of the court. With respect to those claims that were not contained in the previous statement of claim in the first action, they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous or improper. Mcmeekin's cross-application was dismissed because, as far as what remained of the statement of claim, it was without any evidence to support it.

Actions - Topic 2601

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - General - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Actions - Topic 2602

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Vexatious litigant - What constitutes - The Attorney General of Alberta and four lawyers applied to strike out the statement of claim filed in the plaintiff's second action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck both the duplicitous and the remaining portions of the statement of claim vis-a-vis the applicants, but, on its own motion, decided not to make a vexatious litigant order - "First, the application before me is only brought by the Attorney General and four lawyers. There are many other parties who have not brought any applications in this action. I would prefer that, if such an order were made, it would be made at the behest of all of the parties involved. Secondly, the Plaintiff received no notice that an application would be made to prevent him from bringing any actions at all without leave of the Court. ... Third, given that there is an application to strike pending in the First Action before the Master, it does not seem to be an appropriate time to complicate the proceedings in the Second Action when proceedings are going forward in the First Action. Finally, s. 23.1 of the Judicature Act requires that notice be given to the Attorney General if either myself or the defendants pursue a vexatious litigant order. No such notice has been given yet." - See paragraphs 36 to 41.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 2201

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 2207

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Application for - Conditions precedent - The applicants sought to strike out allegations in the statement of claim, pursuant to rule 3.68, contending that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or were frivolous, irrelevant or improper, and constituted an abuse of process - A point raised by the plaintiff was that there was no rule that would allow the court to strike the second statement of claim before the statement of defence was filed - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was mistaken - Rule 3.30 provided a defendant who was served with a statement of claim with three non-mutually-exclusive options, including applying to the court for an order under rule 3.68 (rule 3.30(b)) - Thus, the applicants were entitled to seek an order striking the statement of claim whether or not they had filed a statement of defence - See paragraphs 18 and 19.

Practice - Topic 2210

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Time for objection or application - [See Practice - Topic 2207 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim filed in the plaintiff's Second Action, on the ground that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that "[n]o amount of amendment can possibly save this action" - The claims advanced at paras. 21-23 and 25-26 against those defendants all related to the First Action filed by the plaintiff - "Some are factually hopeless in their entirety. Others allege procedural violations in the conduct of the First Action. ... [T]he New Rules provide ample procedural remedies the Plaintiff can pursue in the First Action. Whatever procedural defects the Plaintiff complains of, they cannot form a basis for a separate action." - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - Defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim filed in the plaintiff's Second Action - The defendants argued that the pleadings were frivolous, irrelevant or improper, and constituted an abuse of process - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the plaintiff's claims were factually hopeless, and could neither succeed in, nor form a basis of, an independent action - Accordingly, those pleadings were found to be frivolous - The remaining pleadings were also improper, as they exhibited all hallmarks of being vexatious - Further, the history of the litigation, while less than a year long, was already marked with numerous improper allegations, attempts to re-litigate settled issues, and general abuse of the process - See paragraphs 29 to 32.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - Defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim filed in the plaintiff's Second Action - The action was against government lawyers who acted on behalf of the Attorney General in the plaintiff's First Action - The defendants argued that the pleadings were frivolous, irrelevant or improper, and constituted an abuse of process - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the plaintiff's allegations of impropriety against the lawyers tended to be a common feature of vexatious proceedings - In the end, the court found that the claims were frivolous, improper and constituted an abuse of process - As a result, the court struck the claims pursuant to rule 3.68 - See paragraphs 33 to 35.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 2237

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to obey court order - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The plaintiff applied in the first action for summary judgment - The defendants sought summary dismissal - Gates, J., ordered that "4. The Plaintiff shall not file any further applications or appeals in relation to this matter until the matters referred to above are heard in Master's Special Chambers on February 1, 2012." - The statement of claim in this second action contained all the same allegations found in the statement of claim in the first action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck out all paragraphs in the statement of claim that were identical to those in the statement of claim in the first action, pursuant to rule 3.68(2)(d) of the Alberta Rules of Court (2010) because they were duplicitous and thus an abuse of the process of the court - "The Statement of Claim in this action is nothing but a covert attempt to circumvent the effect of paragraph 4 of Justice Gates' order." - The court would also strike the duplicitous pleadings on the basis that they were vexatious - "Although the word 'vexatious' is gone from Rule 3.68 in the New Rules, the Courts have interpreted 'vexatious' as being broadly synonymous with impropriety and abuse of process ... As a result, vexatious pleadings can still be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(c)-(ddd)." - Even without the benefit of rule 3.68, there was ample authority for the proposition that the court's inherent jurisdiction allowed it to control its own process to prevent abuse - See paragraphs 9 to 14.

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of process - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Cases Noticed:

V.W.W. v. Leung et al. (2011), 530 A.R. 82; 2011 ABQB 688 (Master), refd to. [para. 11].

Foy v. Foy (1979), 102 D.L.R.(3d) 342 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Dykun v. Odishaw et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 318; 2000 ABQB 548, refd to. [para. 12].

Mazhero v. Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner (Yuk.), 2001 YKSC 520, refd to. [para. 14].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 14].

Khadr et al. v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (2004), 266 F.T.R. 20; 2004 FC 1145, refd to. [para. 14].

155569 Canada Ltd. v. 248524 Alberta Ltd. (1988), 93 A.R. 241(Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Donaldson v. Farrell et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 51; 2011 ABQB 11, refd to. [para. 29].

Serdahely Estate, Re (2008), 453 A.R. 337; 2008 ABQB 472, refd to. [para. 29].

Koerner v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2011), 518 A.R. 35; 2011 ABQB 462, refd to. [para. 33].

Wilson v. Revenue Canada (2006), 305 F.T.R. 250; 2006 FC 1535, refd to. [para. 33].

Mazhero v. Fox et al. (2011), 387 F.T.R. 244; 2011 FC 392, refd to. [para. 33].

Big Bear Hills Inc. et al. v. Bennett Jones Alberta Limited Liability Partnership et al. (2010), 507 A.R. 21; 2010 ABQB 764, refd to. [para. 34].

V.W.W. v. Leung et al. (2011), 530 A.R. 76; 2011 ABQB 687, refd to. [para. 34].

Koerner v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2011), 506 A.R. 113; 2011 ABQB 191, red to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, sect. 23.1 [para. 36].

Rules of Court (Alta.) (2010), rule 3.30(b) [para. 18]; rule 3.68 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Greg Mcmeekin appeared on his own behalf;

Marta Burns (Alberta Justice), for the applicants, Attorney General of Alberta, A. Harriet, C. Lim, Tim Hurlburt and Kerry Whittaker.

This application and cross-application were heard on February 17, 2012, before Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following judgment, with reasons, dated at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 7, 2012.