Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• CIBC alleged the defendant's Statement of Defence contained organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments (OPCA), triggering a CPN7 review.

• The defence questioned CIBC’s authority and claimed a unilateral agreement, contrary to the parties' actual contract terms.

• Justice Nixon issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) Notice under Civil Practice Note 7.

• Defendant cited laws that were either non-existent, repealed, or inapplicable to credit reporting.

• Submissions showed the defendant acted in good faith and presented some arguable facts and legal issues.

• The court declined to strike the defence, finding it did not meet the CPN7 threshold for being clearly abusive on its face.

Facts and Outcome in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Lam, 2025 ABKB 192

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta issued a decision on March 27, 2025, addressing a procedural challenge concerning the defendant’s Statement of Defence in a debt-related civil action brought by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) against Wung-Jun Lam.

Background of the Case

• CIBC filed a Statement of Claim on April 30, 2024.

• The defendant, Wung-Jun Lam (also known by multiple name variations including Jon Lam), filed a Statement of Defence on May 21, 2024.

• On June 7, 2024, counsel for CIBC requested that the court review the Statement of Defence under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), which is used to identify pleadings that may be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Allegations of Pseudo-Legal Arguments

• The Statement of Defence was flagged for containing potential Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA), including:

  • Demands that the plaintiff prove its legal authority

  • Assertions of a unilateral agreement binding CIBC, which contradicted the actual terms of the parties' agreement

• An Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) Notice was issued by Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon on July 19, 2024, initiating the CPN7 review process.

Written Submissions and Review Outcome

• The defendant submitted a Written Submission on August 7, 2024, but failed to serve it on the plaintiff.

• After the Court notified CIBC, the plaintiff filed a Written Reply on February 28, 2025.

• Justice Nixon reviewed all documents and concluded that the Statement of Defence:

  • Referenced legislation that either does not exist (e.g., a “Consumer Protection Act of Canada”), is outdated (the Fair Trading Act), or is inapplicable (e.g., section 13 of Alberta’s Consumer Protection Act, RSA 2000, c C-26.3, which does not relate to credit reporting)

  • Nonetheless, appeared to be filed in good faith and raised some arguable facts and legal points

• As such, the defence was not struck under CPN7 because its deficiencies were not “obvious on the face” of the document, which is the required threshold.

Debt Elimination References

• The defendant had referred to “UnitedWeStandPeople” and Colton Kumar in communications with CIBC—both associated with illegal debt elimination schemes previously condemned by the court in Bonville v President’s Choice Financial (multiple 2024 decisions).

• However, these references were not included in the formal court filings (Statement of Defence or Written Submission), and thus did not impact the CPN7 ruling.

Judicial Guidance and Next Steps

• Justice Nixon declined to strike the defence, finding the CPN7 threshold had not been met.

• The court noted this decision does not prevent CIBC from pursuing further remedies under the Alberta Rules of Court.

• The judge also encouraged Mr. Lam to seek legal advice and provided contact information for Calgary Legal Guidance and Court and Justice Services.

Conclusion

In this ruling, the court exercised procedural restraint despite recognizing elements of pseudo-legal reasoning in the defendant’s pleadings. The decision reinforces that while CPN7 offers a tool to quickly deal with abusive filings, it is not to be used unless the defect is clear on the document’s face. The matter will now proceed through the ordinary course of litigation unless further applications are made.

No party was declared the successful party at this stage.
This was not a merits decision; the court only ruled on whether the Statement of Defence should be struck under CPN7. The action itself continues.