Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• CPN7 review request was denied; 2024 claim was not found to be frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

• The 2024 Statement of Claim raises new causes of action and names different defendants than the 2022 claim.

• Claims in 2024 concern alleged breaches under occupational health and safety law, contract, and common law.

• The 2022 claim involved law enforcement duties under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and Police Act.

• Some factual overlap exists, but legal bases and parties differ significantly between the two claims.

• The ruling does not preclude other procedural challenges to the 2024 claim under the Alberta Rules of Court.

Facts of the Case

On March 5, 2025, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta received a request under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) from counsel representing several defendants (Stoney Lake Surveys Ltd., Jeremy Brown, Mike Vasseur, and Scott Davidson). The request sought a review of the 2024 Statement of Claim filed by Jennifer Spence and Gennexus Medical Services Inc. The request argued that the 2024 filing was duplicative and abusive, referring to a previous 2022 Statement of Claim filed by Jennifer Spence.

The court reviewed the pleadings and determined that while the 2022 and 2024 claims relate to the same underlying events, the 2024 Statement of Claim differs in significant legal and factual ways:

• The 2022 claim involved alleged negligence and statutory breaches in relation to the response and investigation conducted by law enforcement. It was grounded in duties under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Police Act.

• The 2024 claim, however, is focused on negligence and breaches of duties at a worksite, alleged to arise under occupational health and safety legislation, contract, and common law. It also names new defendants not previously named in the 2022 claim.

Court’s Analysis and Application of CPN7

CPN7 facilitates a summary review of a claim to assess whether it is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that:

• Although the factual events underpinning both claims are similar, the legal grounds, statutory frameworks, and defendants differ materially.

• The 2024 claim is not duplicative merely because it stems from the same general incident.

• Submissions based on the partial dismissal of the 2022 claim were not considered, as CPN7 is not a forum for evidentiary or argumentative submissions, citing De’Medici v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ABKB 210.

Outcome

Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon ruled that the 2024 Statement of Claim is not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and therefore CPN7 does not apply. The court did not strike the claim, and the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed.

However, the decision leaves open the possibility that the defendants may bring other procedural motions under the Alberta Rules of Court to address any substantive or procedural issues in the 2024 claim.

No monetary award, costs, or damages were granted or ordered in this decision.

Conclusion

This decision clarifies the limits of CPN7 in early-stage litigation. While it confirms that some overlap in facts between successive claims is permissible, it underscores that new legal bases, parties, and statutory frameworks can justify the continuation of a later claim. The plaintiffs’ 2024 lawsuit will proceed, having survived the preliminary CPN7 challenge.