Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Statement of Claim reviewed under Civil Practice Note 7 as potentially frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

• Claims in the Statement characterized as sensational, inflammatory, and seeking unclear or unattainable relief.

• Court identified a possible collateral attack on Plaintiff’s ongoing administrative process with the Law Society of Alberta.

• Plaintiff directed to submit written justification to avoid potential dismissal under Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

• Interim Order staying the action issued without Plaintiff’s consent pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

• Defendants given structured process to respond to Plaintiff’s submission within specified timelines.

Background of the case

In Naaz v Baxter, 2025 ABKB 84, Ayesha Naaz, the Plaintiff, filed a Statement of Claim on December 20, 2024. Named as Defendants were Cynthia Baxter, Cynthia Baxter Professional Corporation, the Law Society of Alberta, and John Dooks. On January 5, 2025, counsel for Cynthia Baxter and her professional corporation requested a judicial review of the claim pursuant to Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), invoking Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010.

CPN7 provides for a summary procedure to address claims that appear on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon undertook the initial review.

Findings of the court

The Court determined that the Statement of Claim appeared, on its face, to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Specifically, it was found to contain sensational and inflammatory allegations, sought relief that was either impossible to ascertain or unobtainable, and potentially constituted a collateral attack on administrative processes involving the Plaintiff and the Law Society of Alberta.

Procedural directives and implications

The Associate Chief Justice issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding Notice (AVAP Notice), setting out the procedural requirements going forward:

• The Plaintiff, Ayesha Naaz, must file a written submission explaining why the claim is not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

• This submission must be no more than 10 pages and served on all parties within 14 days of receiving the AVAP Notice.

• If the Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will proceed to decide whether to strike out the claim in whole or in part under Rule 3.68.

• If a submission is filed, the Defendants—including the Law Society of Alberta and John Dooks, if they elect to join—may respond with a written reply of up to 10 pages within 7 days of the Plaintiff’s filing.

The AVAP Notice was to be served on the Plaintiff and all Defendants, with Plaintiff’s consent to service via email at ayesha.naaz@yahoo.com noted.

Outcome

As of February 14, 2025, the Statement of Claim remained under review and the action stayed. An Interim Order was to be prepared and served by counsel for Cynthia Baxter and her professional corporation, in cooperation with the other Defendants. Pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c), the Plaintiff’s approval of this Order was not required.

This decision marked the commencement of a formal CPN7 process to assess whether the Plaintiff’s claim warranted dismissal under Alberta’s procedural rules.