Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Leger sought to strike the Defendants' Statement of Defence under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), alleging it was "materially deficient and blatantly contrary to the evidence of fact."

• Application of CPN7 requires the pleading to be frivolous, vexatious, or abusive on its face, and that the CPN7 process be preferable to ordinary Court procedures.

• The Court found the Statement of Defence was consistent with what would be expected from Defence counsel in litigation of this nature and was not an abuse of process.

• Ms. Leger's "Timeline of Events" and "Prologue" documents were not considered evidence for the purposes of her litigation.

• Inappropriate emails and attachments sent to the Judicial Assistant, including transcripts and screenshots, were not helpful to her requests.

• Both parties retain the right to pursue other remedies under the Alberta Rules of Court, including under rules 3.68, 7.2, and 7.3.

Background and parties involved
Linda Leger, the Plaintiff, commenced an action (Docket 2601 00555) before the Court of King's Bench of Alberta against Ravinder Bagga, Barrister and Solicitor, Managing Partner and Owner of Bagga & Associates, operating under Ravinder Bagga Professional Corporation. The Defendants had previously served as counsel for the defendants in three separate actions — Actions 2401 10052, 2401 16803, and 2501 02389 — in which Ms. Leger was the plaintiff. In that capacity, the Defendants were adverse to her. The present lawsuit appears to stem from those prior legal proceedings, with Ms. Leger alleging, among other things, that the Defendants owed her a duty of care during the prior legal proceedings. Her Statement of Claim sought monetary damages in the amount of twenty million dollars, amongst other relief sought.

Ms. Leger's request to strike the statement of defence
By email dated March 2, 2026, Ms. Leger asked the Court to review and dismiss the Defendants' Statement of Defence, which had been filed on January 29, 2026, under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7). She characterized the Defence as "materially deficient and blatantly contrary to the evidence of fact." In support, she submitted a copy of her Statement of Claim, various versions of a "Timeline of Events" providing background on the events leading to the present action and her other related but separate lawsuits before the Court, a Reply to Defence filed February 6, 2026, and an Affidavit she affirmed and filed on February 10, 2026. She also sent the Judicial Assistant several inappropriate emails and attachments such as transcripts and screenshots, which the Court noted were not helpful to her requests.

The CPN7 framework and its applicability
CPN7 sets out summary procedures under rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, for an assessment of a "claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process." Although CPN7 allows for the process to be used for reviewing Statements of Defence, it is more commonly used for reviewing commencement documents. The Court noted that when there are defects in a Statement of Defence, other Court processes may be more appropriate — such as making a Request for Particulars (r 3.61), filing a Reply to a Statement of Defence (r 3.33), bringing an application to strike out all or parts of a pleading (r 3.68), or amending a pleading (r 3.62). Two conditions must be met for CPN7 to apply: 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, as established in Wilyman v Cole, 2024 ABCA 41 at paragraph 20.

The Court's assessment of the defence and evidentiary matters
Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon reviewed Ms. Leger's submissions as well as the Statement of Defence and found that the Statement of Defence was not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The Court made this determination because the Statement of Defence was framed in a manner consistent with what would be expected from Defence counsel in litigation of this nature. The Court observed that Ms. Leger appeared to resent the fact that the Defendants denied the allegations against them, including her allegation that they owed her a duty of care during the prior legal proceedings. While Ms. Leger asserted that her "Timeline of Events with evidence available ... will clearly and easily" prove her allegations against the Defendants to "have this matter settled" and her "claims be paid," the Court noted she needs to prove her points in a court of law. The Court also inferred from her comments that she fails to understand that the Defendants have the right and entitlement to challenge the allegations advanced in the Statement of Claim and her claim for monetary damages, and to present evidence in support of their defence — evidence which may contradict the narrative of events alleged by Ms. Leger. For clarification, the Court stated that evidence can comprise of oral testimony given in a court of competent jurisdiction or written affidavit, and that Ms. Leger's various versions of a "Timeline of Events" and "Prologue," as currently presented, were not considered by the Court 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, effectively denying Ms. Leger's request to have it struck. The Defendants — Ravinder Bagga and Bagga & Associates — were the successful party in this endorsement, as their Statement of Defence was permitted to stand. No monetary award or costs were addressed in this ruling, as the decision was limited to the procedural question of whether the Defence should be struck under CPN7. The Court noted that the endorsement does not prevent either party from applying under the Alberta Rules of Court for other remedies with respect to the action, including under rules 3.68, 7.2, 7.3, or otherwise, and expressed hope that the parties would use ordinary Court procedures to raise arguments, respond to them, and present their relevant factual background and evidence in support of their respective positions.