Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Statement of Claim identified as potentially frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Civil Practice Note 7 and Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court

• Allegations lacked particular claims, factual foundation, and sought excessive, disproportionate, or impossible relief

• Jurisdictional issues raised as administrative remedies may not have been exhausted before initiating court action

• Unclear whether the Plaintiff intended to appeal a firearms license revocation or destruction decision under the Firearms Act

• References to Métis ancestry and trapping authorization lacked clarity regarding the specific administrative decision being challenged

• Plaintiff instructed to file a Written Submission within 14 days justifying the legal basis of the claim to avoid potential dismissal

Facts of the case

Lane Michael McDermott filed a Statement of Claim on December 9, 2024, against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Canadian Firearms Program. On April 2, 2025, the filing came to the attention of Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon, the Administrative Justice for the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta overseeing potentially abusive litigation in Southern Alberta.

Upon review, the Statement of Claim appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The document included bald allegations, failed to make any particular legal claims, and lacked a factual foundation. It also sought relief that the Court found excessive, disproportionate, or impossible to grant. Moreover, it was unclear whether the Court had jurisdiction over the matter, as other administrative processes may need to be exhausted first.

Specifically, McDermott’s claim referred to the revocation of a possession/acquisition firearm license and the destruction of a firearm, apparently under the authority of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c 39. However, the Court noted ambiguity as to whether McDermott intended to refer a decision made by the Chief Firearms Officer or the Registrar to the Court. If eligibility for a license was in question, the appropriate process would involve the Alberta Court of Justice, with further appeal rights to the Court of King’s Bench.

Additionally, McDermott mentioned an authorization permit related to trapping based on Métis ancestry. The Court found it unclear whether he was challenging a decision related to eligibility for a harvesting card—such as an approved Otipemisiwak Métis Government Harvester designation—or another authorization like a Wildlife Identification Number (WIN).

Policy terms and legal framework

No contractual policy clauses were referenced. However, the legal framework included:

• Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, which allows the Court to strike out claims that are frivolous, vexatious, or abusive

• Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), which outlines summary procedures for addressing such claims

• Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c 39, referenced regarding the revocation of licenses and destruction of firearms

• Administrative review processes, such as filing a complaint with a local RCMP detachment or the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP

Outcome of the court decision

Associate Chief Justice Nixon issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) Notice on April 14, 2025. The Plaintiff was directed to reconsider whether the Court was the appropriate venue, especially in light of available administrative remedies.

If McDermott wished to proceed, he was instructed to file a Written Submission of no more than 10 pages within 14 days of receiving the Notice. This submission needed to address, in detail, the legal basis of the claim, clarify the nature of the alleged breach or violation of rights, and explain why the relief sought was not excessive or impossible. Failure to file and serve the Written Submission would result in the Court making a final determination on whether to strike the claim under Rule 3.68. If a submission was filed, the Defendant would have seven days to file a Written Reply, also limited to 10 pages.

The AVAP Notice was to be filed and served by the Clerk. The Court or the Defendant could prepare and serve an Interim Order staying the action until the CPN7 process concluded. McDermott’s approval was not required for such an Order under Rule 9.4(2)(c) of the Alberta Rules of Court. The Plaintiff was encouraged to seek legal advice or assistance from Lethbridge Legal Guidance or Court and Justice Services.

No party has been declared successful yet. There is no mention of any monetary award, damages, or costs being granted or ordered in the decision.