Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Leger sought dismissal of the Defendants' Statement of Defence under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) and requested the Court initiate criminal proceedings against the Defendants.

• Allegations that the Statement of Defence was "vexatious and an abuse of process" due to being "materially deficient and blatantly contrary to the evidence of fact" were not sustained by the Court.

• CPN7 applies only where the frivolous or vexatious nature of a pleading is evident on its face and there is reason to prefer CPN7 over ordinary Court procedures, per Wilyman v Cole, 2024 ABCA 41.

• The Court determined the Statement of Defence was framed consistently with what would be expected from Defence counsel in litigation of this nature.

• Ms. Leger's "Timeline of Events" and "Prologue" documents were not considered by the Court to be evidence for the purposes of her litigation; the Court clarified that evidence can comprise oral testimony or written affidavit.

• A pending application by the Defendants to strike or dismiss the Statement of Claim under rules 3.68, 7.2, or 7.3 had been adjourned by consent, leaving the litigation ongoing.

The facts of the case
Linda Leger, a self-represented plaintiff, commenced an action before the Court of King's Bench of Alberta against ServIt Bailiff Services Inc and an individual named Blane, claiming monetary damages in the amount of twenty million dollars. The nature of the underlying dispute stems from events that also gave rise to other related but separate lawsuits filed by Ms. Leger before the same Court. By letter dated December 6, 2025, Ms. Leger asked the Court to review and dismiss the Defendants' Statement of Defence, which had been filed on December 4, 2025, invoking the summary procedure set out under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7). In the same letter, she also requested that the Court "start criminal proceeding[s] against these defendants."
In support of her request, Ms. Leger submitted a copy of her Statement of Claim along with a forty-one page "Timeline of Events" dated December 8, 2025, which she argued would "clearly and easily" prove her allegations and have the matter settled in her favour. She characterized the Statement of Defence as "vexatious and an abuse of process," contending it was "materially deficient and blatantly contrary to the evidence of fact." Ms. Leger also sent the Judicial Assistant of Associate Chief Justice Nixon several emails and attachments which the Court described as inappropriate and not helpful to her requests.

The CPN7 framework and its applicability
CPN7 establishes a summary procedure under rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, allowing the Court to assess whether a claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. While CPN7 can technically be used to review Statements of Defence, the Court noted it is more commonly employed for reviewing commencement documents. This is because defects in a Statement of Defence are typically better addressed through other Court processes, such as a Request for Particulars under rule 3.61, filing a Reply under rule 3.33, bringing an application to strike under rule 3.68, or amending a pleading under rule 3.62.
The Court referenced Wilyman v Cole, 2024 ABCA 41, which establishes that CPN7 is appropriate only where two conditions are met: first, the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the pleading must be evident on its face; and second, there must be reason to prefer the CPN7 process to ordinary Court procedures.

The Court's assessment of the statement of defence
After reviewing Ms. Leger's submissions and the Statement of Defence, the Court found that the Statement of Defence was not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Associate Chief Justice Nixon determined that the Statement of Defence was framed in a manner that was consistent with what he would expect from Defence counsel in litigation of this nature. The Court observed that Ms. Leger appeared to resent the fact that the Defendants had challenged her allegations and inferred that she failed to understand the Defendants' right and entitlement to challenge the allegations advanced in her Statement of Claim and her claim for monetary damages in the amount of twenty million dollars. The Court emphasized that the Defendants have the right to present evidence in support of their defence, and that such evidence may contradict the narrative of events alleged by Ms. Leger in her commencement documents and proposed evidence.

Evidentiary considerations
The Court clarified that evidence can comprise oral testimony given in a court of competent jurisdiction or written affidavit. While Ms. Leger may use her various versions of the "Timeline of Events" and "Prologue" to assist in preparing an affidavit of records in compliance with rules 5.6 through 5.8 of the Alberta Rules of Court, the Court expressly stated it did not consider these documents to be evidence for the purposes of her litigation.

Ruling and outcome
The Court concluded that CPN7 does not apply to the Statement of Defence, thereby declining Ms. Leger's request to dismiss it through the summary procedure. The endorsement, dated March 23, 2026, preserved the rights of both parties to reschedule a previously adjourned hearing and to apply under the Alberta Rules of Court for other remedies, including under rules 3.68, 7.2, 7.3, or otherwise. At the time of the endorsement, the Defendants had a pending application to strike the Statement of Claim pursuant to rule 3.68, or in the alternative, to dismiss it pursuant to rules 7.2 or 7.3, which had been adjourned by consent. In effect, the Defendants were the successful party on this procedural matter, as Ms. Leger's request was denied in its entirety. No monetary award or costs order was made in connection with this endorsement, and the exact amount of any future costs or damages remains to be determined through the ongoing litigation.