Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adequacy of the plaintiff’s pleadings, including failure to particularize the “who, what, when, where and why” of serious allegations such as legal misrepresentation, illegal NDA fabrication, defamation, and destruction of evidence.
• Propriety of striking the Statement of Claim under rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court via the Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) process for claims that appear frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
• Questions about whether the damages and restitution claimed are excessive or impossible and disproportionate to the alleged harms.
• Potential duplication of this claim with the plaintiff’s other actions (2508 00414, 2508 00418, and 2508 00420) arising from similar factual circumstances.
• Jurisdictional concerns about whether employment-related disputes in a unionized setting belong before the Alberta Labour Relations Board under section 153 of the Labour Relations Code rather than the Court.
• Possible statutory bars and technical defects, including limitation period issues under the Limitations Act and deficient pleading of defamation under the Defamation Act and Alberta Rules of Court.

Background and parties

The case arises from a dispute between the plaintiff, Jillian McKay, and several union-related defendants: CUPE Lethbridge, individual representatives Sandra Walker and Susan Kircher, and CUPE Local 4791. The plaintiff’s employment was covered by a collective agreement, situating the underlying dispute in a unionized labour and employment context. The plaintiff alleges a range of wrongful acts tied to her post-employment situation, including references to a “contract after leaving employment” and a purported non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Although the Statement of Claim asserts multiple serious wrongs, the pleading itself is drafted in a very general way, without clear factual particulars explaining exactly what occurred, when, by whom, and how it led to the alleged harm.

Procedural history of the action

On October 7, 2025, the plaintiff commenced Action No. 2508 00419 by filing a Statement of Claim in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta at Medicine Hat. The defendants responded on October 27, 2025, by filing a Statement of Defence. The parties then exchanged their Affidavits of Records: the plaintiff filed her Affidavit of Records and a Reply to the Statement of Defence on November 3, 2025, while the defendants filed their Affidavit of Records on January 2, 2026. Shortly thereafter, on January 8, 2026, the plaintiff brought an Application supported by affidavit evidence, returnable February 3, 2026. In that Application she sought, among other remedies, penalties, costs, dismissal of the defendants’ Statement of Defence, and default judgment. Before that Application was resolved, the defendants asked the Court on January 26, 2026, to review the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), which is the Court’s summary screening mechanism for potentially vexatious or abusive claims.

The CPN7 framework and governing procedural rules

Civil Practice Note 7 sets out a summary, paper-based process for considering whether a “claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding” appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. It operates in tandem with rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, which permits the Court to strike a pleading in whole or in part where it is abusive, has no merit, or discloses no reasonable cause of action. Under CPN7, a judge or associate chief justice may conduct a preliminary review of a proceeding and, if it appears problematic on its face, issue an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) Notice. That is what occurred here: Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon reviewed the Statement of Claim and concluded that, on its face, it appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, triggering the issuance of this AVAP Notice and a structured written-submission process to determine whether the claim should be struck.

Concerns about the pleading and alleged harms

In reviewing the Statement of Claim, the Court identified several core deficiencies. The plaintiff alleged a number of serious wrongs, including “legal misrepresentation/advice”, “fabrication of illegal documents (NDA)”, “distribution of illegal documents for signing (NDA)”, “breach of contract”, “destruction/alteration of evidence”, “retaliation/deformation [sic] causing harm to reputation and livelihood”, and various costs related to court proceedings instead of arbitration. However, the pleading does not set out the factual circumstances that support these allegations: it lacks detail on who did what, when the alleged acts occurred, how they were carried out, and precisely how they caused the harms claimed. This lack of particularization means the Court cannot easily discern the legal foundation of the claims, and the defendants may be unable to understand the case they must meet. The Court also noted that the plaintiff appears to be seeking impossible or excessive monetary damages and restitution, with amounts that may be disproportionate to the harms described in the pleading. From a procedural and evidentiary perspective, such deficiencies raise concerns that the action may have no realistic prospect of success and may improperly burden the parties and the Court.

Linkages with other related proceedings

The Court further observed that this Statement of Claim appears to substantially duplicate actions the plaintiff has already commenced in related matters. In particular, it references Action Nos. 2508 00414 and 2508 00418, which are also being reviewed under the CPN7 process in McKay v Southern Alberta Community Living Association, 2025 ABKB 660, and McKay v Lethbridge Family Services, 2025 ABKB 741. Another closely related action, 2508 00420, was commenced by the plaintiff on similar facts. In that file, the defendants likewise requested a CPN7 review, but before such review could occur the Statement of Claim was struck at a hearing before Justice Kuntz on February 3, 2026. This broader litigation landscape raises the risk of duplicative proceedings and overlapping claims covering the same employment-related events, which is a classic indicator of potentially vexatious or abusive litigation.

Jurisdictional and statutory context

Beyond the pleading defects, the Court flagged certain legal and jurisdictional issues that the plaintiff is invited to address in her response. Because the plaintiff’s employment was governed by a collective agreement, employment-related disputes typically fall within the jurisdiction of the Alberta Labour Relations Board under section 153 of the Labour Relations Code. The Court therefore questions whether it is the appropriate forum for this dispute and invites submissions on that point. The AVAP Notice also directs the plaintiff’s attention to specific legislative and procedural requirements. For defamation-related allegations, she is referred to rule 13.7 of the Alberta Rules of Court and section 3 of the Defamation Act, which set out what must be pleaded with particularity. The Court asks her to clarify the alleged “fabrication of illegal documents” and the “distribution of illegal documents for signing”, particularly how the NDA or Settlement and Release Agreement is said to be illegal. It also raises the prospect that the claim may be statute-barred under the Alberta Limitations Act, and asks the plaintiff to explain why her claims are not out of time. Taken together, these references show that no insurance or similar policy terms are at issue; rather, the “policy” discussion in this decision is about procedural rules and statutory frameworks governing jurisdiction, defamation pleadings, and limitation periods.

Directions for written submissions under the AVAP Notice

Having concluded that the Statement of Claim appears, on its face, to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, Associate Chief Justice Nixon set out a detailed procedural roadmap. First, the Clerk is directed to file and serve the AVAP Notice on both parties. The plaintiff is then given a strict deadline: she must prepare and serve a Written Submission, no more than ten pages, within fourteen days of receiving the AVAP Notice. That submission must be delivered or emailed to the Associate Chief Justice at the Calgary Court Centre and also served on the defendants. Within that Written Submission, the plaintiff is specifically invited to clarify the factual basis of the alleged harms; explain the nature of the “contract after leaving employment”, the NDA, or any Settlement and Release Agreement; particularize the supposed misrepresentation, defamation, and harassment; explain what is allegedly “illegal” about the documents in question; address why the Court has jurisdiction in light of the Labour Relations Code; justify the quantum of damages and restitution claimed; distinguish this action from the other overlapping actions; and explain why her claim is not barred by limitation periods. She is also told she may cross-reference earlier response emails and affidavits filed in her related actions. If the plaintiff does not meet this deadline and fails to file and serve the Written Submission, the Court will decide, on the existing record, whether to strike the Statement of Claim in whole or in part under rule 3.68.

Role of the defendants and potential interim stay

If the plaintiff does file and serve a timely Written Submission, the defendants will then have seven days to file a Written Reply of up to ten pages, similarly addressed to Associate Chief Justice Nixon and served on the plaintiff. After receiving the plaintiff’s submissions (if any) and the defendants’ reply (if any), the Court will proceed to make a final determination under rule 3.68 as to whether the Statement of Claim should be struck in whole or in part. In the meantime, the defendants are given an additional procedural tool: they may prepare and serve an Interim Order staying the action until the CPN7 process is complete. Importantly, under rule 9.4(2)(c) of the Alberta Rules of Court, the plaintiff’s approval of that Interim Order is not required. This reflects the Court’s concern to control its own process and prevent potentially vexatious or meritless proceedings from consuming disproportionate resources while the threshold CPN7 review is underway.

Outcome and present status of the case

In this particular decision, the Court does not determine the ultimate merits of the plaintiff’s claims or enter judgment in favour of either side. Instead, Associate Chief Justice Nixon issues an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding Notice and establishes a structured process for the parties to make written submissions addressing whether the Statement of Claim should be struck under rule 3.68. At this stage, therefore, there is no final “successful party”: the plaintiff’s claim remains under scrutiny, and the defendants have not yet formally succeeded in having it struck in this action. Because the decision is procedural and initiatory rather than dispositive, no damages, costs, or other monetary relief are ordered in favour of any party. Accordingly, the total monetary award or costs granted in this decision is zero, and it is not yet possible to determine whether any amount will ultimately be awarded in favour of the plaintiff or the defendants in this action.