Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs referenced non-existent legislation (“RTDRS Act”) and sought excessive or impossible relief.

• Jurisdictional concerns emerged regarding the appropriate use of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS).

• The Statement of Claim did not clearly plead breaches of tenancy agreements or actionable legal wrongs.

• Multiple defendants challenged the claim under Civil Practice Note 7 as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

• Allegations of systemic harm and criminal conduct were deemed outside the civil court’s jurisdiction.

• The Court permitted amendments to the Statement of Claim, declining to proceed with CPN7 dismissal at this stage.

Facts of the case

Karis Rinehart, along with tenants (past and present), community members (past and present), and their friends and families, initiated a civil action against multiple parties connected to the management and ownership of the Albert Park (Terrace) Apartments in Calgary. The named defendants included Magnum York Property Management, Go Smart Property Management, Envision Property Management, George Stratis (building owner), and building managers Bart Bardsley, Deborah (Debbie) Kingsbury, and Roger Mazzer.

The Plaintiffs filed their Statement of Claim on January 21, 2025. They alleged harm arising from events at the residential complex, citing emotional and physical harm, “coercive financial extractions,” police calls and arrests, and “community trauma.” The claim appeared to rely on a statute titled the “RTDRS Act,” which the Court confirmed does not exist. Plaintiffs sought broad and significant relief, but the claim did not clearly allege specific breaches of tenancy agreements or set out proportionate or particularized damages.

Procedural history and legal issues

On May 12, 2025, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, acting for Go Smart Property Managers Inc., requested that the Court review the Statement of Claim under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), which provides a framework under rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, for identifying claims that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The Court issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) Notice on June 13, 2025, in Rinehart v Magnum York Property Management, 2025 ABKB 364. The Court noted the Statement of Claim referred to a non-existent statute and failed to identify actionable breaches or clarify whether RTDRS mechanisms had been pursued. It questioned whether the matter fell within the Court's jurisdiction or was more appropriately addressed by the RTDRS.

The Plaintiffs were directed to file a written submission explaining why the Statement of Claim was not frivolous or vexatious. On June 17, 2025, Ms. Rinehart filed a submission asserting the case exceeded RTDRS jurisdiction due to the “scope, scale and systemic nature of the issues.” She clarified the legal basis as the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1, and tort law. She argued that the harms were documented and measurable, and justified the remedies sought.

Defendants filed written replies. Go Smart, Magnum York, and Envision Property Management (along with Stratis, Bardsley, Kingsbury, and Mazzer) all requested continuation of the CPN7 process. They argued the claim lacked legal merit, identified unidentifiable parties, did not show Rinehart was authorized to represent others, sought disproportionate damages, and included allegations of criminal conduct beyond the Court’s civil jurisdiction.

Outcome of the case

On July 8, 2025, Ms. Rinehart filed an Application for Leave to Amend the Statement of Claim, supported by a Form 49 Affidavit and a proposed Amended Statement of Claim, in accordance with directions previously provided by Justice Harrington on June 2, 2025. The Application was scheduled to be heard on July 18, 2025.

In the July 15, 2025 decision (2025 ABKB 430), Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon concluded that Ms. Rinehart appeared to be acting in good faith and was making a legitimate attempt to remedy the defects identified in the original pleading. Accordingly, the Court declined to proceed under the CPN7 summary dismissal process at that time and permitted the Plaintiffs to proceed with their application to amend. The Defendants retained the right to challenge the amended claim once filed.

No party has been declared successful at this stage of the proceedings. No damages, costs, or monetary awards were granted or ordered in either of the decisions (2025 ABKB 364 or 2025 ABKB 430)