Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Applicant sought several forms of relief, including compensation, back pay, and access to a locked-in retirement account, following a disputed resignation from her employer.
   
• Counsel for the Respondents asked the Court to review the Application under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) as apparently frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
   
• Jurisdictional questions arose over an alleged collective bargaining agreement that was referenced but never placed into evidence.
   
• Charter arguments failed because the Respondents are private parties with no Charter obligations toward the Applicant.
   
• Abuse-of-process concerns centered on the Applicant simultaneously pursuing proceedings before the Social Security Tribunal of Canada and seeking overlapping relief in this Court.
   
• Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Application and directed that each party bear its own costs.
   

Facts of the case

Gabri O. Piri, also known as Jennifer L. Laurie, filed an Application against Good Samaritan Society (GSS) and Angela Henke, GSS's Hospitality Manager, on November 4, 2025, along with a supporting Affidavit sworn the same day. The Applicant had submitted a Letter of Tender of Resignation dated July 14, 2023, with an effective date of July 28, 2023. She claimed she was "not properly terminated/offboarded" because she never received an acceptance letter for her resignation or a complete Record of Employment, and she alleged she had gone unpaid for "approx the last 2.5 years" while considering herself "off on paid leave." In her Application, she sought justice, a severance package described as compensation "for hardship and non-compliance," back pay running from an email referencing paid leave dated July 14, 2023 at a "new contract payscale," a mental capacity assessment for Ms. Henke, and the unlocking of her Locked-In Retirement Account (LIRA) due to allegedly incorrect beneficiary information. On November 21, 2025, counsel for GSS asked the Court to review the Application under CPN7, a summary process for assessing pleadings that appear frivolous, vexatious, or abusive on their face. Associate Chief Justice Nixon issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) Notice on January 12, 2026 (reported as 2026 ABKB 28), inviting the Applicant to respond in writing to specific questions about her employment status, her regulatory complaints, her reliance on the Charter, and the status of her Social Security Tribunal of Canada (SST) proceedings. The Applicant filed her Written Submission on January 22, 2026, and GSS replied on February 5, 2026. In her submission, the Applicant clarified that she had resigned willingly but believed she remained employed without pay because her resignation was never properly accepted. She also advised that her SST applications and appeal had both been denied in November 2024, and that she had not pursued a judicial review of that denial, citing a lack of funded legal representation.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The Application invoked a range of statutes, including the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Employment Standards Code, the Personal Information Protection Act, and internal GSS human resources policies. The Applicant specifically relied on section 58(1)(b) of the Employment Standards Code, which requires two weeks' notice of resignation, and section 58(2)(b), which excuses that notice where an employee's health or safety would be endangered by continuing employment; the Court observed that she had in fact given the required two weeks' notice. She also relied on section 60, which provides that a termination notice is of no effect if employment continues past the specified termination date, forming the basis of her claim that she remained employed. GSS, in response, relied on the Limitations Act, arguing the claim was barred because it was not brought within two years of the July 28, 2023 resignation date, and on the Labour Relations Code, particularly section 135, together with Weber v Ontario Hydro, to argue that any collective bargaining agreement governing the Applicant's employment would give exclusive jurisdiction to a labour tribunal rather than the Court. GSS further invoked rule 3.68(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court, arguing the Application should be struck for lack of jurisdiction, disclosing no reasonable claim, being frivolous or improper, and constituting an abuse of process, citing De'Medici v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company and, on the specific point that the Application amounted to a collateral attack on the SST proceedings, Chutskoff v Bonora.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court noted that, under CPN7, only the grounds in rule 3.68(2)(c) (frivolous, irrelevant, or improper pleadings) and (d) (abuse of process) may be relied upon to dismiss a claim through that summary process. The Court declined to make findings on the alleged collective bargaining agreement or the Limitations Act defence, since the agreement itself was never placed into evidence and those issues were better suited to a full Chambers hearing. The Court found the Applicant's Charter arguments to be without merit, explaining that GSS is a private, non-government entity and therefore cannot be held to owe Charter obligations, even though it is a registered charity receiving government funding. Turning to rule 3.68(2)(c), the Court declined to find the Application frivolous, irrelevant, or improper, noting instead that the Applicant had articulated genuine psychological and practical hardship stemming from the breakdown of her employment and appeared to be struggling to navigate legal and administrative processes rather than acting in bad faith. However, the Court found the Application constituted an abuse of process under rule 3.68(2)(d). This conclusion rested on several factors: the Applicant simultaneously argued she had both resigned willingly and remained improperly employed, seeking contradictory remedies of a severance package and back pay; she had not pursued her grievances through her employer or applicable workplace and administrative channels before turning to the Court; her reliance on the Criminal Code was unsupported by any parallel criminal proceedings; and, applying the principle from Al-Ghamdi v Alberta that pursuing relief in the wrong forum constitutes abuse of process, she appeared to be pursuing overlapping relief across multiple forums, including the SST and Employment Insurance processes, without following established appeal or judicial review procedures. The Court also found the relief sought, including the mental capacity assessment for Ms. Henke, to be disproportionate and unsupported by material facts capable of grounding a civil claim.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court concluded that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success and that it would itself be an abuse of process to allow the matter to proceed further, including by way of amendment. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application in favour of the Respondents, Good Samaritan Society and Angela Henke, finding it to be an abuse of process under rule 3.68(2)(d) of the Alberta Rules of Court. Counsel for GSS was authorized to prepare and serve a dismissal order without requiring the Applicant's approval. On the question of costs, the Court directed that each party bear its own costs, citing the Applicant's limited financial circumstances and her evident confusion in navigating the applicable legal and administrative processes. No monetary amount was awarded to either party.