2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII)

Excerpts from the 32 page decision- link to CanLII for the full text.



For full text of the Saskatchewan Courts
decisions in its' entirety go to the following link:


Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan Saskatchewan
A.L. v. Saskatchewan, 2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII) 2008-03-06

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Saskatchewan
Lowery v. Saskatchewan Government, 2010 SKCA 109 (CanLII) 2010-09-09
Below is an excerpt from the 32 page decision of Justice G. Chicoine
Comments by Arlene Lowery are at the end in blue font.

EXCERPT OF DECISION:
- 6 -
the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, but not the evidence by which the facts
are to be proved. It concludes with the statement: A pleading shall be as brief as the
nature of the case will permit. The application of this and other rules relating to pleading
can be challenging even for experienced legal counsel, but proper pleadings are an
important component of any lawsuit. The pleadings must clearly and precisely define the
question in controversy: F.P v. Saskatchewan, [2004] S.J. No. 251 at para. 57; 2004
SKCA 59. As Ball J. stated in Country Plaza Motors Ltd. v. Indian Head (Town), [2005]
S.J. No. 689 at para 8: In the simplest terms, a statement of claim must describe what the
defendant did, and why the plaintiff says it legally mattersthat is, why the defendants
conduct is actionable.
[25] It would be trite to suggest that there is a substantial disconnect between the
damages claimed by the plaintiff in her personal capacity and on behalf of her infant
grandchildren and the alleged actions and shortcomings of the defendants who at various
times came into contact with her and her grandchildren in the course of child protection
proceedings or criminal investigations instigated at the plaintiffs request.
[26] The third part of the amended claim dealing with her removal as an employee of
2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII) - 11 -
the counselling firm that had established is eight pages long and consists of 63
paragraphs.
i
She alleges that both the Government of Canada and the Government of
Saskatchewan, one particular employee of the Government of Saskatchewan and the
Regina City Police are responsible for the damages that she incurred when she was
forcibly removed from her place of employment. This is how she describes the
wrongdoing of these defendants at para. 298 of the amended claim:
298 These Defendants engaged in lies, half truths, theft, professional misconduct,
manipulation of one another, bribery, embezzling of program funding dollars, and
purposeful acts done to discredit the Plaintiff to others, engaging in malicious gossip,
and meticulously conspired with one another, or played some role leading to these
damages, believing as public servants (current and former), that they were entitled to
do so.
2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII)
Excerpts from the 32 page decision- link to CanLII for the full text.
[27] The plaintiff claims damages from these defendants from the date of June 8, 1998,
to the anticipated date of her retirement. She describes these damages at para. 310 in the
following terms:
310 Damages include: a breach of confidence, breach of confidentiality, through acts
of theft, slander, acts of malice, causing her loss of reputation, loss of income, undue
stress, unresolved grief and loss of enjoyment of life and quality of life, and
undermined her human rights and harmed her in every way, and for which she is
claiming damages to be jointly and severly (sic) attributed to those whom this
Honourable Court deems responsible and libel (sic).
[28] It is particularly difficult to make any connection between the events that took
place at her place of employment and the events that are described in parts one and two
of the amended claim, but not from lack of trying. At para. 307 she states:
307 All of the Defendants in this lawsuit participated in, one way or another to bring
harm and serious damage to her, affecting her career, her livelihood/income, her
investments, the income of her husband and his livelihood and affected the Plaintiffs

2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII) - 12 -
health and her general overall well-being, and that of her husband and her
grandchildren, named as Infant Children/Plaintiffs.
[29] At para. 344 she attempts to provide some rationale for having had to commence
this lawsuit in these terms:
344 If these Defendants had not done all of this to the Plaintiff and allowed her to be a
part of the solution and worked with her, and not viciously attacked her in every
possible way, the Plaintiff would never have had to stop to reflect on the accumulative
and collective damages that were an outgrowth of one adoption, which ultimately
defined her life.
[30] The plaintiff concludes this section of her claim with the following statement at
para. 359 [indicated as 142]:
142 The Plaintiff relies on all provisions of the law at her disposal, and all doctrines
that apply to this claim, in obtaining justice to the fullest for herself.
[31] I have previously described the test for determining whether a claim should be
struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action as being whether the claim has a
reasonable chance of success, or in other words, no arguable case. Having thoroughly
reviewed both the original Statement of Claim and the claim in its amended form, it
appears to me that the entire lawsuit is based on the premise that the plaintiff was tricked
into adopting a special needs child in 1972 contrary to her expressed wishes. The
plaintiff now seeks compensation from the government, social workers, doctors and
police personnel who she claims conspired to damage her and her family because she
insisted on obtaining justice for herself and her grandchildren when she realized that her
adopted daughter and offspring could never lead normal lives, bearing the ancestral
pain that all of the defendants knew or should have known could never be overcome by
means of a cross-cultural adoption.
2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII) - 13 -
[32] It is my opinion that a claim based on an adoption which failed to meet the
adoptive parents expectations is not a reasonable cause of action and has no chance of
success. That the plaintiff should claim damages from these defendantssocial workers,
2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII)
Excerpts from the 32 page decision- link to CanLII for the full text.
child protection workers, doctors, psychologists, police officers, and other public
[32] It is my opinion that a claim based on an adoption which failed to meet the
adoptive parents expectations is not a reasonable cause of action and has no chance of
success. That the plaintiff should claim damages from these defendantssocial workers,
child protection workers, doctors, psychologists, police officers, and other public
servants, including the provincial and federal governmentsas if they are the source of
every difficulty encountered by the plaintiff, her daughter and her grandchildren over the
course of the past 36 years is untenable. There are myriad other factors, choices and
decisions made by the plaintiff, her spouses, her daughter and the persons they had
relationships with over the course of these many years which contributed to the harm
which the plaintiff claims she and her family has suffered. This claim would be near
impossible to adjudicate and in fairness to all the defendants they should not be forced to
defend themselves from such spurious allegations. There are myriad other factors,
choices and decisions made by the plaintiff, her spouses, her daughter and the persons
they had relationships with over the course of these many years which contributed to the
harm which the plaintiff claims she and her family has suffered. This claim would be near
impossible to adjudicate and in fairness to all the defendants they should not be forced to
defend themselves from such spurious allegations.
servants, including the provincial and federal governmentsas if they are the source of
every difficulty encountered by the plaintiff, her daughter and her grandchildren over the
course of the past 36 years is untenable. There are myriad other factors, choices and
decisions made by the plaintiff, her spouses, her daughter and the persons they had
relationships with over the course of these many years which contributed to the harm
which the plaintiff claims she and her family has suffered. This claim would be near
impossible to adjudicate and in fairness to all the defendants they should not be forced to
defend themselves from such spurious allegations.
[33] For these reasons, the original Statement of Claim and the amended claim are both
struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action under Rule 173(a).There is a minimum
standard which must be met,
however, in order to ensure fairness to all of the parties in the litigation process and to
prevent an abuse of the courts process. Ball J. in Country Plaza Motors Ltd. v. Indian
Head (Town), supra, framed the issue as follows at para. 13:
13 Although the trend in Saskatchewan is to permit a party to have his day in court
and not to examine pleadings with a microscope, a plaintiffs pleadings must
nevertheless raise a justiciable claim against each of the defendants. Where it is
impossible to distill a disparate number of allegations into coherent and material facts on
which a cause of action against the defendants can be based, the claim will be struck.
That is so whether or not the plaintiff is represented by legal counsel. In
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Kieling, [1994] 3 W.W.R. 714; (1993), 117 Sask.R. 218
(Q.B.), Armstrong J. stated at para. 43:
43 Lay people cannot be expected to draft precise, correct legal pleadings.
Nevertheless, one cannot be allowed to do whatever one wants, however
one wants whenever one wants and the court still be in control of its own
processes....
2008 SKQB 115 [12]
In determining whether a claim should be struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of
2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII)
Excerpts from the 32 page decision- link to CanLII for the full text.
action under Rule 173(a), the test is whether, assuming the plaintiff proves everything
alleged in his claim, there is nevertheless no reasonable chance of success, or to put it
another way, no arguable case: Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1992] S.J. No. 197
(SKCA); 105 Sask. R.133. While the material facts in the statement of claim must be
taken as true, this does not apply to allegations based on assumption and speculation:
Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judges Assn. v. Saskatchewan, [1995] S.J. No. 692
(SKCA); [1996] 2 W.W.R. 129.
[13] On the other hand, the court is not limited to reviewing the pleadings on an
application under Rule 173(c) or (e) where it is alleged that the claim is scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court. Evidence other than the
pleadings may be considered in order to assess the merits of the claim and the motives of
the plaintiff in bringing it: Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada, supra, per Sherstobitoff J.A.
at para. 18.
[14] The principles governing pleadings are set out in Part Ten (II) of The Queens
Bench Rules.

Arlene Lowery's Notes:
Please note the summary of the pleadings / causes of action for this amended claim which
was based on continuous injury as explained in my affidavit to the SCC.

The claim was based on continuous injury.
i. The pleadings were specific and even a lay person could figure them out as to
who did what and if it was legally important.
ii. It was council for these defendants who never followed The Queens Bench Rules
as they never filed a motion 'to strike my amended claim, never had a Statement
of Defence filed and had no supportive or substantive materials like evidence or
affidavits to counter any statements/pleadings I made.
iii. This justice deems there are no pleadings and if you and I believe that then we are
gullible-but we're not..
iv. Not being given all of the facts was apparent in a concocted fraudulent pre
adoption report. It had nothing to do with a little girl who needed a home but it
had to do with an adoption report intended to perfect an adoption having never
considered the needs of our entire family.
v. This judge has taken what sentences he deems weak in my argument and ignores
the fact that our adopted daughter had numerous cigarette burns all over her body
and the social worker claimed and the doctor who examined her missed these
burn marks-or did they miss them?
Now what is happening is dj vu.
Charlene has burn marks on her and we have Dr. Ruthnum not
seeing them and so they were not documented.
Then my husband and I are called 3 weeks after I report these
injuries into the medical clinic that the integrate sexual abuse team
uses to examine children at the Regina General Hospital.
Charlene tells Dr. C. Norman that her mommy burnt her with a
knife and it was a hot knife was shocking.
2008 SKQB 115 (CanLII)
Excerpts from the 32 page decision- link to CanLII for the full text.
Then to say photographs were taken and then no they weren't and
then indicating that my husband and I were the caretakers when
these injuries occurred was 'over the top'.
and the list of pleadings go on and on.....If you have read Part Two
of my claim and the affidavit the details are there. The pleadings
were clear.

* It wasn't clear to this judge that he should not include the original claim
with the amended claim and that the original claim was set aside. He had
two years less a day to figure this out before he dictated his decision but it
never dawned on him -or did it?
vi. Justice F. Kovach determined I had a claim with substantive pleadings or he
would never have allowed me to amend it in the first place. The Supreme
Court of Canada thought I had three lawsuits. See the area on this website
relating to my legal journey to the SCC.
vii. So the legal system needs an overhaul as the serious lack of consistency from one
judge to another is an injustice to Canadians providing opportunity for corruption.