McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al., (2012) 543 A.R. 132 (QB)

• Judge: Shelley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 543 A.R. 132 (QB);2012 ABQB 456

McMeekin v. Alta. (A.G.) (2012), 543 A.R. 132 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. JL.073

Greg McMeekin (respondent/applicant/plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Alberta/Crown Prosecutor's Office Edmonton; A. Harriet & C. Lim Counsel for the Crown and Attorney General's Office of Alberta, the Edmonton Humane Society: Shawna Randolph, Dr. Karen Lange, Lisa Callas, Deb Pope, Valerie E. Kensett, Holy McBride, Carolee Hofman, S/Cst. Granysh and John Doe's of the Edmonton Humane Society (applicants/respondents/defendants)

(1103 12194; 2012 ABQB 456)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Shelley, J.

July 12, 2012.

Summary:

A dog owner (McMeekin) was charged with causing or allowing his dog to become distressed by leaving him in a closed car on a hot day (Animal Protection Act). The charges were subsequently stayed by the Crown. McMeekin, as a self-represented litigant, sued the Crown (incl. the prosecutors), alleging malicious prosecution and the Edmonton Humane Society (EHS), alleging misconduct respecting the dog and defamation. The defendants applied to strike the action and McMeekin demanded that the statement of defence be struck.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck McMeekin's action and dismissed his summary judgment application. The court opined that, in addition to the substantive grounds, the action should be struck on the basis that it was vexatious.

Actions - Topic 2601

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - General - [See both Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action - A dog owner was charged with causing or allowing his dog to become distressed by leaving him in a closed car on a hot day (Animal Protection Act) - The charges were subsequently stayed by the Crown - The dog owner (plaintiff), as a self-represented litigant, sued the Crown (incl. the prosecutors), alleging malicious prosecution - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck the action - The defendants had both a subjective and objective belief of a reasonable and probable cause which provided a basis for the animal welfare proceedings and there was no malicious intent - There was no Crown misconduct - Alternatively, the court opined that the action should be struck because it was vexatious, citing the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of judicial conspiracy and his other misconduct in the action - See paragraphs 128 to 146, 156 to 172 and 178 to 227.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action - A dog owner was charged with causing or allowing his dog to become distressed by leaving him in a closed car on a hot day (Animal Protection Act) - The charges were subsequently stayed by the Crown - The dog owner (plaintiff), as a self-represented litigant, sued the Edmonton Humane Society (EHS), alleging misconduct respecting the dog and defamation - The EHS applied to strike the action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck the plaintiff's action - The misconduct claim was out of time - There were fatal defects in the plaintiff's case which meant he could not succeed at trial - In any event, there was no misconduct by EHS or its employees - Alternatively, the court opined that the action should be struck because it was vexatious, citing the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of judicial conspiracy and his other misconduct in the action - See paragraphs 147 to 152 and 173 to 227.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - [See both Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General - Frivolous or vexatious actions - [See both Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 5375

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General - Where statement of claim is struck out - [See both Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355, refd to. [para. 40].

Dykun v. Odishaw et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 318; 2000 ABQB 548, refd to. [para. 70].

Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. v. Executive Centre at Manulife Place Inc., [2011] A.R. Uned. 252; 2011 ABQB 189, refd to. [para. 133].

Encana Corp. v. ARC Resources Ltd. (2011), 523 A.R. 108; 2011 ABQB 431, refd to. [para. 133].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 134].

Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al. (2009), 395 N.R. 115; 337 Sask.R. 260; 464 W.A.C. 260; 2009 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 137].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Phillips (M.A.) (2003), 320 A.R. 172; 288 W.A.C. 172; 2003 ABCA 4, affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 623; 311 N.R. 94; 339 A.R. 50; 312 W.A.C. 50; 2003 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Rodgers - see R. v. Jackpine.

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.) et al. (1996), 85 B.C.A.C. 210; 138 W.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].

Donaldson v. Farrell et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 51; 2011 ABQB 11, refd to. [para. 179].

Haljan v. Serdahely Estate - see Serdahely Estate, Re.

Serdahely Estate, Re (2008), 453 A.R. 337; 2008 ABQB 472, refd to. [para. 179].

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. 180].

Mazhero v. Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner (Yuk.), 2001 YKSC 520, refd to. [para. 180].

Khadr et al. v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (2004), 266 F.T.R. 20; 2004 FC 1145, refd to. [para. 180].

155569 Canada Ltd. v. 248524 Alberta Ltd. (1988), 93 A.R. 241; 1988 CanLII 3936 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 180].

Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation) et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 159; 544 W.A.C. 159; 2012 ABCA 36, refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Sydel (E.N.M.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1470; 2010 BCSC 1470, affd. [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1473; [2011] 1 C.T.C. 200; 2010 BCSC 1473, affd. [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 34; 2011 BCCA 103, refd to. [para. 193].

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 199].

Koerner v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2011), 518 A.R. 35; 2011 ABQB 462, refd to. [para. 205].

Wilson v. Revenue Canada (2006), 305 F.T.R. 250; 2006 FC 1535, refd to. [para. 205].

Mazhero v. Fox et al. (2011), 387 F.T.R. 244; 2011 FC 392, refd to. [para. 205].

Hildebrandt et al. v. Fire on the Mountain Productions Inc. et al. (2001), 287 A.R. 363; 2001 ABQB 301 (Master), refd to. [para. 206].

Crocker-McEwing et al. v. Drake et al. (2001), 282 A.R. 201; 2001 ABQB 13, refd to. [para. 210].

Allen v. Gray et al. (2012), 532 A.R. 252; 2012 ABQB 66, refd to. [para. 211].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 7.3(1)(a) [para. 132].

Counsel:

Greg McMeekin for himself;

James Early (Parlee McLaws LLP), for the Edmonton Humane Society, Shawna Randolph, Dr. Karen Lange, Lisa Callas, Deb Pope, Valerie E. Kensett, Holy McBride, Carolee Hofman, S/Cst. Granysh and John Doe's of the Edmonton Humane Society;

Kerry Whittaker (Alberta Justice - Civil Litigation), for the Attorney General of Alberta/Crown Prosecutor's Office Edmonton; A. Herriot, C. Lim, Attorney General's Office of Alberta.

This matter was heard on March 29, 2012, in Edmonton, Alberta, before Shelley, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on July 12, 2012.