Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants jointly requested the Court to review the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), which provides summary procedures for assessing claims that appear on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

• Central to the claim is the Plaintiff's allegation that His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta violated her privacy by allowing "his agents," the Calgary Police Service, to covertly insert neurotechnology into her brain to monitor and control her bodily functions and bodily integrity.

• The Plaintiff also sought to compel the Attorney General of Canada to legislate to protect her "neuro space," a request that the Plaintiff herself later recognized may not be within the Court's jurisdiction.

• Potential limitation period issues arise under the Alberta Limitations Act, as some of the alleged incidents appear to have occurred outside of the limitation period.

• The Court noted it is not clear whether there has been a "search" or "seizure" for constitutional purposes, nor whether there is any ongoing or concluded administrative or criminal investigation concerning the Plaintiff.

• Despite the defendants' arguments that the claim was clearly vexatious, the Court found the Plaintiff appears to be acting in good faith and granted her leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

The parties and the claim

Kerry-Ann Bignall, appearing without legal counsel, filed a Statement of Claim on January 29, 2026, before the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in Calgary, naming the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta as defendants. In her claim, Bignall alleged that the province, through the Calgary Police Service acting as "his agents," covertly inserted neurotechnology into her brain. She maintained that this technology was used to monitor and control her bodily functions and bodily integrity, constituting a violation of her privacy rights. The Plaintiff also alleged breach of provincial and federal privacy laws. Bignall further sought an order compelling the Attorney General of Canada to legislate to protect her "neuro space."

The defendants' response under Civil Practice Note 7

On February 9, 2026, counsel for both defendants submitted a joint written request asking the Court to review Bignall's Statement of Claim under Civil Practice Note 7, which sets out summary procedures using Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, for an assessment of a claim that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. The defendants argued that the Statement of Claim was clearly vexatious on its face and should be dismissed. The Court noted, among other things, that the Calgary Police Service — central to the Plaintiff's allegations — was not named as a defendant in the Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff's reply and request to amend

The Plaintiff submitted a reply on February 26, 2026, after the Court granted her an extension of time. In her submission, Bignall acknowledged that "some of the errors in the document are honest mistakes" and proposed to remove certain "deficient" paragraphs. She argued that her claim could be "one of public interest" because the public would be "interested to know about the existence of neurotechnology and what are the implications of its abuses and misuses" and that "the safeguarding of mental privacy and mental integrity are important issues to the public." She further stated that "[n]ot many people know of neurotechnology and that it can be used to manipulate thoughts and read minds. These are great dangers to human dignity, which must be safeguarded." Bignall requested that the Court grant her permission to amend the Statement of Claim and dismiss the defendants' request for review under CPN7.

The Court's assessment and guidance

Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon reviewed the Statement of Claim and the submissions of the defendants and the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff appears to be acting in good faith with respect to her Statement of Claim and her thoughtful request to amend it. The Court noted that Bignall acknowledged she has "had a challenging time" obtaining legal guidance and was cognizant of attempting to "save both personal and judicial resources." She also recognized that after conducting some research, some of her original requests for relief are not within the Court's jurisdiction. Rather than striking the claim, the Court outlined several issues Bignall may wish to address in her amendments, including what actions she has taken with provincial or federal privacy regulators such as the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (OIPC) and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; the specificity of her causes of action; particulars supporting her neurotechnology allegations, including whether "what felt like an ant" and the "ant technology" was actually an ant or other insect and whether there are more plausible explanations for her changes in bodily functions; the factual basis for her assertion that she has "felt that she was being profiled"; the jurisdictional basis for her Charter challenges; potential limitation period defences under the Alberta Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12; the status of a referenced human rights complaint; and the basis on which the amount of monetary relief sought is fair, reasonable, and appropriate.

The ruling and outcome

The Court granted Kerry-Ann Bignall leave to amend her Statement of Claim, setting a deadline of April 3, 2026, to file and serve an Amended Statement of Claim. The Court indicated it would then determine whether it is still appropriate to proceed with the CPN7 process, including any review of the Amended Statement of Claim under CPN7. The endorsement expressly preserved the defendants' right to apply in the future for other relief under the Alberta Rules of Court, including Rule 3.68, for remedies for alleged issues or deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, as may be amended. No monetary amount was awarded or ordered in this decision, as the ruling was procedural in nature — addressing only whether the Plaintiff could amend her pleading rather than adjudicating the substantive merits of the dispute. The Court encouraged the Plaintiff to seek legal advice and assistance, directing her to Calgary Legal Guidance at (403) 234-9266 and Court and Justice Services at 1-855-738-4747.