Action No.

: 0503 1925

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA; CAPT. THERESA MAE

GERMAN; CAPT. BENTLEY BARR; MAJ. STOKES (JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL'S OFFICE); CST. MICHAEL POIRIER (ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED
POLICE #38758); DR. VIJAY SINGH AND DR. CURTIS WOODS (FACS FILE 25909);
Prof. ROGER BLAND (UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA)

Applicants/Defendants

- and -

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN

Respondent/Plaintiff

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN BRIEF FOR

SPECIAL JUSTICE CHAMBERS APPLICATION
SCHEDULED FOR JULY 27, 2007

Barbara Stratton Kevin Bradley German

Bennett Jones LLP Self-Represented
Solicitors for the Appellants No. 205, 245 Edwards Dr.
Dr. Vijay Singh Edmonton, Ab T6X 1J9
And Dr. Roger Bland Ph: (780) 439-0235
Ph: (780) 421-8133 Fax: (780) 439-0235 (pre-arrange)
Fax: (780) 421-7951
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................... 1

I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2

II SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS ..................................................................................... 5

Specific Treatment by Individual Doctors..................................................................................... 5

(a) Dr. Roger Bland ............................................................................................................. 5

(b) Dr. Vijay Singh .............................................................................................................. 6

III ISSUE .................................................................................................................................... 7

IV ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................... 7

General Principles.................................................................................................................. 8

MEDICAL EXAMINATION................................................................................................ 8

Rule 217(1) - Order for examination ..................................................................................... 8

Rule 186.1 (a) - Definition of record ..................................................................................... 9

Rule 128 - Cost where facts not admitted............................................................................ 11

Rule 601(1) - Awarding Costs ............................................................................................. 11

Rule 216.1(1) - Modification by the Court ......................................................................... 12

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 13

V. RELIEF SOUGHT...................................................................................................................... 13

ALL OF WHICH IS REPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.................................................................... 13

VI. List of Authorities..................................................................................................................... 14

 -2-

I INTRODUCTION

1. The Plaintiff is self-represented in Queen’s Bench, claiming Damages and “loss” suffered
to justify Curtis Woods’ and the Barrs’ Court-imposed battery and also serving as “Case
Presentation Officer” and “Expert Witness” for the purposes of the Transport Appeal Board of
Canada, addressing the opinions expressed by co-Defendant Roger Bland in a “recommendation”
dating to March 2004 as knowingly erroneous, careless, negligent and defamatory in nature.

2. The case history eventually led to an “accredited medical conclusion” via the co-Defendant
physicians which would effectively end the Plaintiff’s aviation career due to a condition assessed
as “absolutely disqualifying”, but on the balance of probabilities, contested as random and the
result of the Court’s imposition of judicial will in the face of numerous clear warnings of pending
litigation.

3. The case is unique due to the sheer number of co-Defendants and their positions in the
civic or judicial matrix. The three co-Defendant physicians are all psychiatrists, while the co-
Defendant Barrs are members of the Canadian Armed Forces (Cadet Instructor Cadre) and
passively represented by the Judge Advocate General’s Office via Land Forces Western Area; the
Barrs’ “employer”. Finally, co-Defendant Cst POIRIER is a member of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and has been acting as an agent for the Barrs’ interests since at least 6 December
2001. Therefore, dealings with the co-Defendant Barrs have been more informal in nature in the
spirit of the Transport Appeal Board’s review process, which is quasi-judicial in nature.

4. The case addresses the events of 25 Dec ’01, which led to the Plaintiff filing a document
with the Air Cadet League of Canada following the Cadets’ harassment and reporting channels and
is known as a “CHAP” Report (for “Cadet Harassment and Abuse Prevention”), under the
attention of the League since 28 Dec ’01. The case also addresses the Barrs’ filing of an “assault”
charge to defend the events of the day, as filed on 30 Dec ‘01. The criminal charges have led to a
comedy of errors to press ahead a sanction and attempt to justify the co-Defendants’ forensic
“observations” but the defence materials have been, at each milestone, negated, overlooked or
dismissed as irrelevant to the case.

5. On March 6, 2006, Master Wacowich issued written reasons, striking out the claims of
malicious prosecution and Charter breaches as against the co-Defendant Physicians, and requiring
a specific list of particulars in respect for other claims. The results of this were filed March 22,
2006. The case then took a tangential track as the co-Defendant Barrs filed for “Emergency
Protection” on April 10, 2006, under Justice Goss in defending a scene at their residence. In this
“Goss” decision, the Barrs attempt to negate the “Details for Damages” as filed by suppressing the
Plaintiff’s forensic record as “unrelated” and stating (in abstention) “his meds were helping when
he takes them” and “he is now refusing his meds”. These statements, along with numerous others,
are not only defamatory and speculative, but serve to verify co-Defendant Woods’ diagnostic skills
and at the cost of the Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career (and in the face of the “Details
for Damages” as previously filed under the Wacowich decision).

6. Collectively, the case to-date constitutes an actionable “Conspiracy with Intent to Injure”
on the part of the co-Defendants, attempting to justify events past as “reasonable, careful, skilled
and proper” in defence of their actions, opinions, conclusions and recommendations. The facts
 -3-

show, however, that at each point these psychiatrists were working exactly against the Plaintiff’s
career needs to address the Barr’s concerns or to meet the “House Arrest Conditions” demanding
compliance and “proof of treatment” for the Courts (on attempting to appeal the conviction for the
mis-handled trial).

7. All of this has been in the face of numerous objections to the “olanzapine therapy”; deemed
by Curits Woods a necessity to address the Barrs’ “Consent Order” demands and resulting in Dr.
Bland’s negligent “review” (while purportedly acting as agents in support of Transport Canada’s
“concern for aviation safety”).

8. The “evidence” acting as “proof” for the claim for professional negligence in forensics is
the fact that the Transport Canada references (dating to March 2004) mention a “medical
conclusion” and “psychiatric history” arising from “treatment” that was neither requested,
consented to, deemed wise or responsible by the Plaintiff, against clear objections and instruction
to counsel, and at all points rebutted with a solid forensic record (the CHAP Report or via “fax”).

9. The “Expert Opinion” testimony in the case can be provided by the Plaintiff, with 15 years’
Flight Safety Management experience with the Department of National Defence and three years’
experience as an Enforcement Officer with Transport Canada’s Aviation Enforcement Branch. It
is noteworthy that the Courts tend to rely on the opinion of a forensic psychiatrist but in the
aviation field, although a psychiatrist is a physician, their “opinions” are of no more value than a
dentist’s would be.

10. Further, the AHE Record under Dr. Singh’s AHE Report of 22 March 2002 speaks to the
events of 25 Dec ’01 (pre-trial), and the conclusions and recommendations reached by Dr. Bland
for Transport Canada’s specific concerns bear little or no resemblance to the facts as reached by
Dr. Singh (having since accrued a [random] “diagnosis” while under Curtis Woods’s attention and
the speculatory inclusion of “alcohol problems in the past” (based on a pardoned offence) for a
expression of opinion, and purported to be “remorseful” for events that did not occur, while under
the briefest attention for Dr. Bland’s contested “review”).

11. The case, as of May 2007, therefore balances the “recommendation” of Dr. Bland with a
recent medical (physical) exam as completed by a Dr. Solloreder, a qualified Canadian Aviation
Medical Examiner, current as of 27 April 2007 and this remains the first and only aviation medical
exam attended since events began to destabilize in 2001.

12. The Plaintiff seeks damages suffered in addressing the defamatory remarks, the battery,
and the “Abuse of Process” as the “Goss” decision collides with “Wacowich”; all incurred in
attempting to defend against the suspect “charges: and meet the terms of the Barrs’ “Consent
Order” (dating to mid-2002), “House Arrest” (dating to late 2002) and “EPO Conditions” (dating
to May 2006, under “Goss”).

13. The decisions of Master Wacowich, Justice Goss, Dr. Bland and Justice MacKay have
resulted in a Charter of Rights Challenge on the topic of “Informed Choice in Health Care” and
“the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood” and seeking restitution with the Court of Queen’s
Bench and the Transport Appeal Board of Canada, each, for their stations in the judicial matrix,
 -4-

being the “Court of Competent Jurisdiction for those who’s rights have been infringed or denied”
under the Charter’s s. 6.2(b), s.7, s. 12, s. 15, s. 24 & s. 28.

14. The case also finds itself anchored across several legal fields, with criminal law covering
the “assault”, “uttering threats” and “battery”, as well as “libel” and “public mischief” addressing
these charges in counterclaim as vexatious and unwarranted. The Queen’s Regulations and Orders
(21.19 and 21.21) address “when a Claim Against the Crown seems likely” and the Crown
Liabilities Act addresses the actions (or lack thereof) for members of the RCMP, Department of
National Defence and Transport Canada. “Family Law” addresses the “Consent Order” and
“Emergency Protection Order” issues for the Barrs, while attempts to subvert the Transport Appeal
Board Review and meet the “Consent Order” demands amount to “Abuse of Process” (for the
Barrs) and “Prosecutorial Misconduct” on the part of the St. Albert RCMP (Popik) and Crown (the
Barrs via the “Kennedy” decision).

15. As stated, the Crown Liabilities Act holds the Crown liable for events past 17 Dec ’01
(based on the neglected forensic record of the period). It is noteworthy that, in Canadian Tort Law
(5th Edition), Justice Allen Linden summarized the Just decision by saying: "the government must
be entitled to govern free from tortious liability. It cannot be a tort for government to govern.
However, when a government is supplying services, that is, doing things for its people other than
governing, it should be subject to ordinary negligence principles" and these “services” would
include the RCMP’s investigative services and AHE’s forensic psychiatry branch in addressing the
Plaintiff’s career needs in defending against the suspect charges.

s36:. For the purposes of determining liability in any proceedings by or against the Crown,
a person who was at any time a member of the Canadian Forces [ the Barrs via the CIC
]or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [ Cst Poirier and Cpl Popik ]shall be deemed to
have been at that time a servant of the Crown.

CanLaw Reference: http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-50/sec36.html

The Plaintiff asserts that “doing things for its people other than governing” would rightfully
include setting the standard for “fairness and equality” for the community (for the CIC, RCMP and
LFWA) and turning an eye to the principles of “equal protection and benefit of the law” and
“serving and protecting” (for Crown’s representatives) on balancing both sides of the investigation,
on the balance of probabilities and weight of evidence, on consideration of all materials available
to the Courts pre-trial, while acting at all times for the greater Public Interest in addressing Crown
motives.

16. The case, at trial, will therefore address how the “Distorted Content from the Internet” – the
“problem analysis” in the CHAP Report dating to 25 December 2001 – became, over time,
reported as “remorse, debilitating mental illness, alcohol issues, under-reported drug dependencies,
personality flaws, ‘stalking’ the Barrs’ Cadets and now at a high risk of relapse”… all while under
the attention of the co-Defendants’ forensic experts in reporting for “whatever treatment is directed
by FACS” as “proof of treatment as directed” for the Courts and also, attempting to meet the terms
of the Barrs’ “Consent Order” demands in the process.
 -5-

II SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

Specific Treatment by Individual Doctors

(a) Dr. Roger Bland

17. Dr. Bland saw the Plaintiff on one occasion, that being February 26, 2004.

18. Dr. Bland purports to have done this review to gauge the suability of “fitness” to exercise
the privileges of a Private Pilot’s license under the terms of the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.A-
2. In fact the “assessment” was an attempt to resume the privileges of an Airline Transport Pilot’s
License; the difference being “weekend hobby” for the layperson as opposed to “bread and butter
career interests” for a professional aviator.

19. Dr. Bland was in receipt of a letter from co-Defendant Curtis Woods, of 12 February, 2004,
which mentions a CD-ROM containing the case history and issues to that date. Dr. Bland did not
review the CD-ROM or inquire about it’s purpose or scope in his “review”, while intended to be
“independent” for the Plaintiff’s concerns, simply parroted the “findings” already on the file under
FACS #25909 and added a list of irrelevant and defamatory remarks of his own prior to releasing
his “recommendation”.

20. On March 3, 2004, Dr. Bland stated that in his opinion, the Plaintiff did not meet Transport
Canada’s criteria as a result of medications taken to treat an alleged psychiatric condition. Dr.
Bland was unaware of the numerous objections to these medications (now addressed as “Damages
Suffered by the Battery” under “Wacowich”). This “assessment” was rebutted in addressing his
errors in fact in a letter to Dr. Albrecht of 17 March, 2004. Nevertheless, on 30 March 2004, the
Plaintiff received a letter from Transport Canada effectively ending the Plaintiff’s career at that
point with the implication that “all decisions are final”, based on the “psychiatric condition”
rebutted by the Plaintiff as random and a fabrication of the Courts’ (FACS’) imposition of judicial
will.

21. This negligent and irresponsible “recommendation” would have effectively ended the
Plaintiff’s aviation career aspirations at that point. Dr. Bland’s refusal to amend his notes, in light
of the full facts to-date, has left the Plaintiff unable to meet the terms of the “Consent Order” and
“House Arrest” without resorting to litigation and has also resulted in lost opportunity costs
incurred from 2004 to the resolution of this action.

22. Dr. Bland also states in his letter of 3 March 2004: “There were insufficient symptoms
present at the time of the interview to make a definitive diagnosis based on his mental status” but
goes on to rather blindly verify Curtis Woods’ notes as having been “confirmed” by the Plaintiff
when these notes were, by formal correspondence, corrected and rebutted as irrelevant or
misleading. This places the “Bland Review” at once inconclusive by his own admission,
confirmed and yet denied by the Plaintiff, and therefore knowingly erroneous and lacking in
credibility but nevertheless accepted as “definitive and binding” for Transport Canada’s specific
concerns.
 -6-

23. Subsequent events could therefore have been averted by the application of “due diligence”
in addressing the errata on review of the referenced digital media at the time, and prior to formal
confirmation by Dr. Danforth.

24. Also in the balance, and quite outside the scope of any employability concerns, is the
“medical history” for the Plaintiff’s (and Ms Barr’s) children and the Plaintiff asserts it would be
unwise and entirely irresponsible for the medical record to remain uncorrected if contested as
erroneous, out of deference to the judgement underlying the Barrs’ “House Arrest” and “Consent
Order” issues and the findings of those behind the references provided via Transport Canada’s
concerns in an attempt at compliance which was against direction to counsel, and by nature,
doomed from the outset for failure.

(b) Dr. Vijay Singh

25. Dr. Singh saw the Plaintiff for the period resulting in the AHE Report of 22 March 2002, at
the Alberta Hospital Edmonton.

26. This assessment purports to have been at the direction of the St. Albert Provincial Court
(the “Court”) to determine the Plaintiff’s fitness to plead and assess “criminal responsibility”. As
events unfolded, the second “breach” was an act of “Civil Disobedience” triggered on the part of
the Plaintiff on the appearance in the Edmonton Journal of the “Hi & Lois” panel and the
experience of the first ERC incarceration; Justice Burch had hinted at the sentencing for the first
breach there would be a formal “assessment” ordered if there was a second breach of direct
contact.

27. The “Singh Report” was deemed a requirement of the Plaintiff to enter into the record the
Plaintiff’s “state of mind at the time of the alleged offence”, medical categorization, life state and
issues pertaining to the pending divorce (such as Custody and Access issues) to prepare for the
defence of the suspect charges. During this period, and since, the author has been using the alias
“Mahatma Coat” (named after Ghandi’s much-less-famous butler) to draw attention to the civics
issues in the defence materials and this, then, speaks to the issues of “motive” and “intent” for the
CHAP and supporting documentation; issues deemed “overvalued” but critical to understanding
the case history for FACS’ File #25909 (and long since neglected by the time of the “Bland”
decision).

28. This “Singh Report” was intended to be brought to the attention of the St. Albert Crown
(containing the clear element of “doubt”) and was also a proactive strategy to guard the Plaintiff’s
aviation medical category and it is the “loss” of this medical certification to a (random) diagnosis,
contested as negligent, that is the core of the Details for Damages. In the fullness of time, this
report is again before the Courts but not to address the “assault” charge. Instead, these findings are
on the record to rebut the accrued “facts” of the case as they eventually made their way via the
contested “Bland” review and back to Transport Canada, in an attempt to meet the Court’s own
demands.

29. Dr. Singh made a series of recommendations for the Courts, but did not address the Civil
Action looming with the “loss” of employability filed on Transport Canada references which
represent the third “grounding”. This clear warning appears under his signature as the “assortment
 -7-

of well-organized documents”, and rebuts the history of “schizoaffective psychosis” as a

fabrication of a series of negligent forensic psychiatrists (terminating with the “Bland”
recommendation).

30. To illustrate the degeneration of the record over time, Dr. Singh assessed the Plaintiff, in
March 22, 2002, as having “very superior intelligence”, “no psychiatric diagnosis” and “no
intention of harming anybody” pre-trial but, by May 2006, the Plaintiff’s life state had been
reported as “a harmless ranter who lives on the street”, “suffering from mental health illness” and
by then, somehow, “remorseful” for the events of the period (as reported under the attention of Dr.
Bland).

31. Dr. Singh was, by this time, prepared to corroborate Curtis Woods’ contested “diagnosis”
(the result of a one-hour assessment on 1 November, 2002) and therefore, negate his own
established findings based on Woods’ careless notes and suspect observations.

32. Dr. Singh’s report also mentions the civil “value systems” from the CHAP and stated that
“by these individuals, the logical, natural, spiritual and legal value systems have all been inverted
and despite his subligations, prayers and humbleness, his personal failure has remained
predetermined”. Now proven via the “Popik” investigation of mid 2006 and the Barrs’
confirmation under the “Goss” EPO Application, the question outstanding is when, and by whom,
this chain of events could have been addressed and averted but the facts are that the St. Albert
Crown Prosecutor’s Office have had these observations on-file since 22 March 2002.

33. The Capital Health Authority record ended in “a perfectly adequate description of events
and circumstances provided by Dr. Woods”, contested by the Plaintiff, but which became the
events of record for Transport Canada’s requirements as Dr. Bland glossed over the core issues
and rebuttal forensics accrued prior to confirmation of his abbreviated and injurious “independent
assessment” of the facts.

34. Dr. Singh seeks to dismiss his interest in FACS’ File 25909 as having had no further
interest in the Plaintiff since the submission of the AHE Report of 22 March ’02 but the facts are
that Dr. Singh was prepared to reverse his own finding to corroborate Curtis Woods’ “diagnostics”
(post-grounding in 2005), thus assuming the role of Curtis Woods’ (and Cst Poirier’s) “enabler”;
defined as one “assisting others in avoiding the consequences of their negligence or professional
misconduct”.

III ISSUE

A. Should this action be summarily dismissed against the Appellants?

IV ARGUMENT

35. The case is has many Charter issues, and it is noted the Memorandum of Decision of
Master Wacowich (6 March 2006) states “The Supreme Court of Canada has held, ‘Where private
party ‘A’ sues private party ‘B’ relying on the common law and no act of government is relied
upon to support the action, the Charter will not apply”.
 -8-

36. The co-Defendant Barrs have been sued jointly and severally as representatives of the
Department of National Defence, Cadet Instructor Cadre but have chosen not to respond to the
Claim under the advice of the Judge Advocate General’s Office. Their demands could only have
been rightfully addressed by a psychiatrist deemed accredited in the field of Aviation Psychology,
if at all, but in the event the task fell to Dr. Bland (his practice rooted in the academic culture, vice
the Aviation Community for the Plaintiff’s specific concerns or the Corrections System for the
Civil and Criminal Court Systems in assessing “motive” and “intent” as per FACS’ mandate).

37. Since the “Wacowich” decision, the St. Albert Crown has elevated the case by attempting
to sanction the Plaintiff for attempting “full and fair disclosure” of the materials before the
Transport Appeal Board (following directly from their own demands and the Alberta Rules of
Court) and these “breaches”, on appeal at the time of writing, attempt to justify the unwarranted
medical intervention and suppress the forensic record as “unrelated” to the “Goss” conditions.

38. In an “Abuse of Process” the terms of the “Goss” decision were used to subvert the Civil
Claim by the co-Defendants’ reporting suspect materials as having been addressed to the Barrs’
children (vice the Plaintiff’s).

39. In this case it is unclear to the Plaintiff whether the “act” of reference is an “Act” enabled
by Parliament or an “act” resulting in Damages in tort. Either way, the “loss” in question resulted
from the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and Crown Representatives. In addressing the claim,
the Crown Liabilities Act holds that the St. Albert Crown and the co-Defendant Barrs are liable for
the judicial bias, defamatory remarks, breach of confidence and willful blindness of it’s
investigative agents and Officer Corps.

General Principles

MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Rule 217(1) - Order for examination

In subrule (10), "health care professional" means

(a) a duly qualified medical practitioner;

(b) a person licensed, certified, registered or regulated in Alberta, whose

practice includes the assessment, diagnosis or treatment of a person's physical or mental condition
or capacity

In any action brought to recover damages or other compensation for or in respect of personal
injury sustained by any person, the court may order that the person in respect of whose injuries,
damages or compensation are or is sought shall submit to be examined by a duly qualified medical
practitioner.

40. The “duly qualified medical practitioner” can only be a Canadian Aviation Medical
Examiner (“CAME”) and the Appellant here relies on the medical examination of record provided
by Dr. Sollereder, dated 26 April, 2007. (Note that, under the Transport Appeal Board, costs of re-
 -9-

establishing “fitness” falls on the Appellant and are addressed under the “Wacowich” decision of 6
March, 2006.)

41. This “assessment” resulted in a second “Refusal to Renew”, dated 7 May 2007, and the
Transport Appeal Board of Canada will brings the facts to-date before this “Court of Competent
Jurisdiction” to rebut the “accredited medical conclusion” on the balance of probabilities
(weighing the diagnostic criteria for “schizoaffective psychosis” and the “Bland” recommendation
with the numerous warnings of pending litigation on the record from November 2002 and the
“Distorted Content” in the CHAP Report).

42. For QB 0503 19251, the Capital Health Forensic Assessment psychiatrists have been
erratic, careless and irresponsible and are, on appeal, in a Conflict-of-Interest position (with a
vested interest in covering the negligence and diagnostic skills of their peers). The “duly qualified
medical practitioner”, for Transport Canada’s Appeal Process, must be a qualified Flight Surgeon.
(The “diagnosis or treatment of a person's physical or mental condition or capacity” via “Bland”
was the “assessment of record” and led to the Plaintiff being eventually re-assessed as a “harmless
ranter who lives on the street” by the RCMP’s POPIK; all of this as CHA’s best attempt to be
“helpful”.)

Rule 186.1 (a) - Definition of record

For the purpose of this Part, a question or record is relevant and material only if the record could
reasonably be expected to significantly determine one or more of the issue raised in the pleadings.

43. Dr. Singh was, on the provision of the Transport Canada references, prepared to
corroborate Curtis Woods’ “diagnosis” according to the notes provided to the Edmonton City
Police, negating his own finding in the process. The essential issue is when, or how, Cst Poirier’s
misconduct on the attempt to appeal translated into a concrete psychiatric “diagnosis” via “House
Arrest” and how this long series of forensic experts managed to overlook the CHAP Report and
numerous objections and warnings of pending litigation.

B. Summary Judgement and Rule 159 in the Medical Malpractice Context

44. To succeed in a medical negligence action, a plaintiff must prove on the balance of
probabilities that:

(a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff;

(b) The defendant breached the required standard of care;

(c) The plaintiff suffered an injury or loss; and

(d) The defendant’s conduct was the actual and legal cause of the plaintiff’s injury or
loss.

In addressing the duty of care:

 - 10 -

45. The plaintiff asserts that Dr. Bland should have been fully aware of the case history by
making himself familiar with the contents of the CD-ROM as referenced in FACS’ “Release of
Clinical Records” in March 2004. Further, these clinical records would have rightfully included a
series of warnings of pending litigation dating from the November – December 2002 timeframe,
past which time the “loss” of long-term employability was a logical certainty (to justify the
unwarranted “olanzapine” therapy and resulting inertia that FACS’ “care plan” had, by that time,
established via Curtis Woods’ attention).

46. The “Details for Damages” covers the period of FACS’ “care” under co-Defendant Curtis
Woods, but there are tertiary damages addressing the “Bland” decision as well and these damages
could have easily been averted by an unbiased “review”.

In addressing the breach of that duty:

47. The “loss” suffered was that of the privileges previously accorded (but indeterminately
suspended via the “Consent Order” issue) and further, there was financial distress and loss of
professional status addressing the “Bland” review, as it was Dr. Bland’s negligent
“recommendation” that effectively ended any further chance of returning to the aviation business
without resorting to litigation. Dr. Bland had an opportunity to address his errors in fact prior to
Dr. Danforth’s “accredited medical conclusion” of record.

In addressing the injury and “loss”:

48. Dr. Bland also recommended reassessment after a “considerable period” off medications
but the (contested) letter from March 2004 references the medical history as “absolutely
disqualifying”, thus negating the chance of reassessment without resorting to litigation. It is
implied that “reassessment” would be via Dr. Bland (or another psychiatrist) but commonly
accepted Hippocratic Oath issues, as well as Capital Health Authority values, dictate that any
physician would defer such an assessment to one more suitable to address the patient’s core needs;
the issues being those of “Informed Choice in Health Care” and “adapting to the needs of our
clients”.

49. This would mean, for a pilot, the services of an accredited Canadian Aviation Medical
Examiner; now Charter s. 6.2(b), s. 15, s. 28 and s. 24 issues running in tandem before the
Transport Appeal Board of Canada on review with the “Sollereder” report of 26 April, 2007.

In addressing the actual and legal cause of the plaintiff’s injury or loss:

50. The nexus of the assertion that Dr. Bland’s “review” was fundamentally flawed and
therefore, negligent and irresponsible is the resulting illogic such that:
1. Failure to comply with the “recommendation” leaves the Appellant non-compliant and with
medical issues outstanding for the Barrs’ “Consent Order” and “House Arrest”, and is
therefore against the Appellant’s core interests; yet
2. Complying with the “recommendation” implies returning to co-Defendant Curtis Woods
for further attention while this “care plan” has no prospect of eventual relief and is,
therefore, also against the Appellant’s core interests.
 - 11 -

Rule 128 - Cost where facts not admitted

Where the court is of opinion that any allegations of facts denied or

not admitted, ought to have been admitted, the court may make an order with respect to any extra
costs occasioned by their having been denied or not admitted.

AR 390/68 s128

51. The Barrs went on to assert in a closed hearing under “Goss” that the contested medical
intervention (the “battery”) was “helping” and that the Plaintiff was “refusing his medications” at
the end of the period under FACS’ attention. The Barrs further asserted to Crown that the
resulting Civil Action had not proceeded and existed only in the Plaintiff’s mind, this resulting in
“EPO Breaches” imposed on contradictory testimony to justify events past, but the facts are such
that the Barrs were served with the forensics supporting the QB Action in November, 2005 and the
CAT Documentation in May 2006.

Rule 601(1) - Awarding Costs

Notwithstanding anything in Rules 602 to 612, but subject to any Rule expressly requiring
costs to be ordered, the costs of all parties to any proceedings (including third parties), the
amount of costs and the party by whom or the fund or estate or portion of an estate (if any)
out of which they are to be paid are in the discretion of the Court, and when deciding on
costs the Court may consider the result in the proceeding and

(a) the amounts claimed and the amounts recovered,

(b) the importance of the issues,

(c) the complexity of the proceedings,

(d) the apportionment of liability,

(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to unnecessarily lengthen the
proceeding,

(f) a party's denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted,

(g) whether any step or stage in the proceedings was

(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or

(ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution,

(h) whether a party commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have
been made in one proceeding or whether a party unnecessarily separated their
defence from another party, and

(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs.

 - 12 -

Rule 216.1(1) - Modification by the Court

The Court may modify or waive any right or power under this Part, on terms or otherwise, or may
impose terms on any party, where

(a) any party acts or threatens to act in a manner that is vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive,
improper or prolix, or

(b) the expense, delay, danger or difficulty in complying fully would be grossly
disproportionate to the likely benefit.

52. The “Goss” decision and the breaches of the resulting conditions address the “Wacowich”
decision and attempts to justify events past by suppressing the forensic record as “unrelated” and
misdirected. In the resulting investigation, the co-Defendant Barrs stated they were in receipt of
matters before the Courts but the St. Albert Crown asserted that these items were not “court
documents” (lacking a stamp).

53. As the St. Albert Crown sought to dissociate these matters and “Goss” was a matter held
without representation for the Appellant (and based on contradictory testimony), the “breaches”
arising from these matters are clearly “vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive, and improper”.
Verification can be confirmed on only a casual review of the supporting transcripts and EPO
Affidavit “Exhibit F”.

54. The expense and delay in addressing the CAT “process” and difficulty in complying fully
with the terms of the “Goss” decision have been another 15 months’ lost opportunity costs and
therefore, grossly disproportionate to the likely benefit of any sanction.

55. The Appellant therefore asserts “Abuse of Process” for events under appeal and claims
costs under “Wacowich” the “cause” being Prosecutorial Misconduct, “Conspiracy with Intent to
Injure”, “Defamation” and “Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress”.

56. Following on the decision of Master Wacowich, the four elements (for malicious
prosecution) are here adjusted for the claim of Prosecutorial Misconduct as:

(a) The proceedings were initiated by the co-Defendant Barrs via the St. Albert Crown via
a decision of Ms Barr and Crown Kennedy; dated 20 Jun ’06;
(b) Termination is on Appeal as “Abuse of Process” under Justice MacKay and supported
by witness testimony arising from the trial of 18 Dec ‘06;
(c) The “absence of reasonable and probably cause” rests on the “Goss” decision post-
dating “Wacowich” by some months (as both address the Appellant’s medical record
and noted objections but the Barrs have no legal right to assert what therapies were, or
are, to be considered “helpful” for the Appellant); and
(d) “Malice or primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect” references
the JAG’s failure to address the QB Action and the Barrs’ seeking to subvert the
Transport Appeal Process to justify “House Arrest” and events past, such as Curtis
Woods’ breach of confidence and Cst Poirier’s (known) professional misconduct.
 - 13 -

Frigault v. Bartram, [1995] A.J. No. 210 (Q.B.)

Wikipedia Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_misconduct

Conclusion

57. This action was commenced on Novermber 22, 2005, by filing a Statement of Claim.

58. The evidence to support the allegations against the co-Defendants are on the record, under
FACS File #25909, in the words of the co-Defendants. The “expert opinion” produced is that of
the Appellant’s, and one need only match the conclusions reached by Dr. Singh and Dr. Bland to
establish that the required duty of care has failed under fundamentally flawed forensics over a
three-year period from 2001 - 2004. As an example, Dr. Bland has stated the appellant knowingly
breached a Restraining Order (now a matter of record for Transport Canada’s concerns) when, in
fact, none was ever applied for by the Barrs and this matter, like most, evaporates to “hearsay” on
only a casual review of the case history; these matters only available for rebuttal to address
Transport Canada’s specific concerns (for appeal) via “Examination for Discoveries”.

V. RELIEF SOUGHT

59. The Plaintiff respectfully requests:

(e) Relief under the Charter’s s. 24 guarantees for “restitution as deemed appropriate
and just” by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction for those who’s (Charter s. 6.s(b))
rights “have been infringed or denied”;

(b) Costs of this action with “Abuse of Process” and “Conspiracy with Intent to Injure”
(resulting in avoidable losses) being the Cause of Action; and

(c) Such further and other relief as this honourable Court may permit.

ALL OF WHICH IS REPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Per: _______________________
Kevin B. German
Plaintiff and
Case Presentation Officer
AA 261961 – Transport Canada
QB 0503 19251 – FACS 25909
 - 14 -

VI. List of Authorities

1. Notification of Infringement of Charter Rights; 25 July 2006

2. The Law with Respect to Abuse of Process (QB 0503 19251)

3. Civil Aviation Tribunal Rules (for Abuse of Process on Satisfaction the co-Defendants’
“Consent Order” Demands)

4. Analysis and Disclosure – Crown Counsel Kennedy Opinion

5. CAT Appeal Process and Alberta Rules of Court, Rule 187 (1) – 187 (5)

6. Analysis – 1061590 Ltd. V. Ontario Jockey Club (CHA Authorities [5])

7. Excepted References from the Common Law (Conspiracy Issues for “Goss”)

8. The Four Elements of Tort

 Docket No: 060841749-P-1
CAT Appeal LVC AA261961

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

- and –

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN

Applicant

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT OF CHARTER RIGHTS

TAKE NOTICE that the trial which is scheduled to proceed on Docket #060841749-P1
in Provincial Court for 18 December 2006 [or, alternately, Court of Queen’s Bench], the
Applicant may be alleging the following Charter rights have been infringed or denied:

Charter s. 1 Issues:

1. Rights only subject to such limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society, as the Applicant was barred free access to the press (specifically,
Ms Simons of the Edmonton Journal) and Freedom of Association for individuals in the
Applicant’s discrete social circles.

Charter s. 2 Issues:

2. The following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion as FACS' co-Defendant Dr. Singh was
allegedly waiting for the Plaintiff to abandon his religious beliefs (and Duty of
Trust and Care to his son, Bernard Joshua German) before AHE would release the
patient as "fit to plead" (which could have left the accused innocent, mentally
fit, yet arbitrarily detained as "a Prisoner of Faith" for an indeterminate period);
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the
press and other media of communication as the Plaintiff was charged for "uttering
threats" (*8) which were clearly scapegoat charges to mask the co-Defendants'
 -2-

negligence concerns, when matched with the "freedom of expression" in the use
of a creative interface for the FACSWeb CD-ROM as the "media of
communication" of choice;
c) freedom of association in being subject to "House Arrest" and barred access to
members in the Applicant's discrete social circles via alternate modes of
communication.

Charter s. 6.2(b) Issues:

3. The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood, as:

a. the Respondent was attempting to prepare an appeal for the mishandled trial (so
as to regain fair employment) and was breached for unintentionally making
indirect contact with the co-Defendants in QB Action 0503-19251 (thus standing
accused, knowingly, of an alleged offence committed without the element of
“mens rea” on the part of the Applicant, which is obviously unreasonable and
neither “fair” or “just”);
b. the Applicant was subsequently libelled by a Federal Official (namely, Cst
Poirier of the St. Albert RCMP) and falsely assessed as “off medications” in clear
violation of warnings of pending litigation on-file for FACS File #25909 pre-trial;
c. The Respondent was then directed to “take any as directed by FACS” at which
point:
i. Non-compliance would leave the Respondent in violation of the Court’s
direction and therefore leads to professional destruction on the Criminal
Code issues; yet
ii. Compliance leaves the Respondent in a position where "a history of
psychiatric care” also leads to professional destruction on the
Aeronautics Act issues.

Charter s. 7 Issues:

4. The right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived
thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, which would
demand a properly disclosed defence prepared (by FACS) on the weight of evidence of
all materials available to the Courts pre-trial.

Charter s. 9 Issues:

5. The right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, as the Respondent was

imprisoned on hearsay testimony once, on an arbitrary decision of the St. Albert
School Board once, and on an arbitrary and libellous assertion of FACS that prepared
court materials were “vaguely threatening” when this assertion would obviously not
stand in a Court of Law.

Charter s. 10(b) Issues:

 -3-

6. The right to retain and instruct counsel, as the Respondent is clearly on the record from
17 Dec ’01 that discussion of the medical issue “cannot be allowed to happen, at all,
period” and this direction was knowingly breached at numerous points.

Charter s. 11(d) Issues:

7. The right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public hearing, for
the “assault” charge itself, the Morinville hearing which followed, the handling of the
libellous “threats” charges which are referenced in the transcript for the Emergency
Protection Order but not yet proven, Prof. Bland’s (contested) “review” of March
2004, the Emergency Protection Order Hearing which has led to this Charter s. 13
Challenge (where Judge Goss relied on conflicting and contradictory testimony and the
existence of what the co-Defendants asserted as “stuff in the mailbox”), and finally, the
Civil Aviation Tribunal appeal currently underway which would be unfairly prejudiced
by further imposition of judicial will without full and fair disclose intended to protect
the interests of the accused.

Charter s. 12 Issues:

8. The right not to be subject to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, as the
Respondent is prepared of offer to the Courts a “Human Rights Abuses Empowerment
Flowchart” anchored in the events of para. 2; the very existence of which is legally
unsupportable on Canadian soil (or anywhere else on the globe).

Charter s. 15 Issues:

9. The right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law for the Applicant and the
applicant’s child Bernard Joshua Garman as a victim of an abusive dynamic that was
knowingly enabled and condoned by co-Defendant Dr. Woods via breaches of
confidence and libellous assertions at the direct cost the Applicant’s – and the
applicants’ children’s’ – direct and indirect interests.

Charter s. 6(b) Issues:

10. The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood (on the attempt to distribute
malpractice disclosure on the contested "diagnosis" in the form of a multi-media CD-
ROM called "FACSWeb III; The Return of the Jaded"), when subsequently again libeled
by Federal Official (namely, co-Defendant Ms Barr as a representative of the Cadet
Instructor Cadre and Capital Heath Authority) as having distributed inappropriate
photographs of the co-Defendant with the disclosure; thus unfairly discrediting the
credibility of the Plaintiff.

Charter s. 24 Issues:

11. Additionally, the defence will be seeking a remedy pursuant to s. 24 (1) and s.24
(2) of the Charter as ongoing litigation (QB Action 0503-19251) and full review of the
 -5-

Docket No: 060841749-P-1

CAT Appeal LVC AA261961

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT

OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent,

- and –

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN

Applicant.

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT OF
CHARTER RIGHTS

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN

CPO - AA261961 Appeal

10116 105 Ave
Edmonton, Alberta
T5H 0K2

Telephone (780) 439 0235

Fax (780) 439 0235

Applicant

(Plaintiff, QB Action 0503-19251)

 -4-

facts of the case from 17 December 2001 to-date under the attention of the
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada with the Applicant acting as “Expert Witness”
and “Case Presentation Officer”, speaking for Transport Canada’s specific concerns as
regards the privileges previously held (but intermediately suspended under the
attention of Crown Representatives since the events of 18 Dec ’01 to-date) under
License Validation Certificate AA261961.

DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this 25th day of July, A.D.
2006.

Kevin Bradley German

Plaintiff, QB Action 0503-19251

TO: Clerk of the Court

AND TO: Agent of the Attorney General of Alberta
Re: "061133047P1 and 061434429P1” (QB 0503 19251 & 003-0072-A):

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs3-979/1990rcs3-979.html

Excerpted: The Law with Respect to Abuse of Process

>>

This Court has recognized the doctrine of abuse of process, quite independently
of the Charter.

A judge has the power to stay or strike down proceedings which are oppressive
or vexatious and violate the fundamental principles of justice underlying the
community's sense of fair play1 and decency. The power is to be exercised only
in the "clearest of cases". As stated in R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659, at p.
1667:

[ POPIK: They weren't served anything about a civil claim, but had to dig it out
of their recycling. ]

A trial judge has discretion to stay proceedings in order to remedy an abuse of

the court's process. This Court affirmed the discretion "where compelling an
accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which
underlie the community's sense of fair play and decency and to prevent the
abuse of a court's process through oppressive or vexatious proceedings" (R. v.
Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128, at pp. 136-37, borrowing from R. v. Young (1984), 40
C.R. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.)). The judge's power may be exercised only in the
"clearest of cases" (Jewitt, supra, at p. 137).

[ QB 0503 19251: The “fundamental principles of justice which underlie the

community's sense of fair play” would demand the JAG reply to the QB Action,
following the Alberta Rules of Court, and also, the “Registered Letters” under the
GOSS Decision addressing the “Consent Order”2 and “House Arrest”3 conditions
so that an effective dialog could move the custody and career issues ahead. ]

1
The “community’s sense of fair play” would demand that the co-Defendant Barrs action their
side of the defamation suit to plead or motion to strike. Further, the “one page covering letter”
under GOSS deserves at least the courtesy of a reply. These are especially true when the
documentation resulted from the Barrs’ own initial terms and conditions.
2
The “Consent Order” resulted in a medical opinion from a psychiatrist (Dr. Bland) which was
knowingly anchored in irrelevant and libelous data and therefore the cause of “foreseeable injury”
to the Plaintiff’s reputation and career. It was, nevertheless, accepted as an “accredited opinion”
by Transport Canada’s Dr. Danforth and thus proves “malpractice/negligence”.
3
The “House Arrest Conditions” demanded that the Plaintiff report for “whatever treatment is
directed” and bring back the results to the Courts (and the co-Defendant Barrs). The AHE Report
of 22 Mar ’02 concurrently negated the need for any “treatment” and WOODS ignored numerous
warnings of pending litigation (such as the definition of “enabler”; all cc’d to counsel).
 Under the doctrine of abuse of process, the unfair or oppressive treatment of an
appellant disentitles the Crown to carry on with the prosecution of the charge.

The prosecution is set aside, not on the merits (see Jewitt, supra, at p. 148), but
because it is tainted to such a degree that to allow it to proceed would tarnish the
integrity of the court. The doctrine is one of the safeguards designed to ensure
"that the repression of crime through the conviction of the guilty4 is done in a way
which reflects our fundamental values as a society5" (Rothman v. The Queen,
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 640, at p. 689, per Lamer J.) It acknowledges that courts must
have the respect and support of the community in order that the administration of
criminal justice6 may properly fulfill its function.

Consequently, where the affront to fair play and decency is disproportionate to

the societal interest7 in the effective prosecution of criminal cases, then the
administration of justice is best served by staying the proceedings8.

<<

4
The AHE Report and the “mens rea” issues speak to motive and intent for the events of 25 Dec
’01, the attempt to appeal, the resulting “accredited conclusion” what triggers the Civil Claim for
Damages” and the provision of the TC Refs to the co-Defendant Barrs.
5
“Double Jeopardy” has seen the CHAP and AHE Report of 22 Mar ‘02 overlooked by the
BURCH, BLAND, GOSS and MacKAY decisions. In the process, the Plaintiff has been subjected
to the intentional torts of professional negligence (FACS and UofA), slander (BARR), libel
(POIRIER, WOODS & BARR), battery (WOODS), breach of confidence (WOODS and POIRIER),
willful blindness (POPIK), “Abuse of Process” (BARR & KENNEDY), “public mischief” (WOODS
and BARR) and perjured and contradictory testimony on the Goss EPO Affidavit simply to deny
the QB Action and attempt to justify the results of the “Consent Order” demands.
6
The “administration of criminal justice” demands that the case, at all points, be tried on the
weight of all materials available to the Courts. This would include the “AHE Report” 22 Mar ’02
the “Hi & Lois” panel (under BURCH and SINGH), the CHAP Report (under WACOWICH) and
the “Paradigm Conflict” exhibit (under HANEBURY). All of these were ignored to press through
the prosecution, justify the “olanzapine” and sanction the Plaintiff for pointing out the legal errors
to Crown (under GOSS and rebutted by claiming “damages” under HANEBURY).
7
The plaintiff asserts it cannot be considered at all “in the public interest” (for Alberta Justice) or
“wise use of resources” (for CHA) to end a career in aviation in favour of a lifetime on AISH for
the “crime” of requesting a report from Ms Edwards of Leo Nickerson (to prep the appeal in ‘02).

This was the causation leading to the “diagnosis” resulting from the period under FACS’ attention.
8
Crown KENNEDY admitted that the QB Action 0503 19251 was filed with the Clerk of the Court
5 Dec ’05, and that a Special Chambers Session (rebutting the EPO transcripts and Affidavit) had
been held which dates to the time of the GOSS decision.
Points for Appeal:

1. The WACOWICH Decision stated that “The costs shall be in the cause”
and the “cause” was the “loss” of employability to fundamentally flawed
forensics resulting in TC’s standards (via the Bland decision9; contested).

2. The “main arrows for FACS” were specifically to address this and these e-
mails were on the “FACSWeb CD-ROM” of Dr. Woods’ (currently
contested) notes to Dr. Bland from early ’04 but ongoing in appeal.

3. Crown’s suspect assertions that these e-mails would require a “stamp” to

meet the definition of “forensic evidence” fails the test of relevance
because FACS’ own admissions draw these materials into the record10.

4. There is also a series of questions and answers called “Can-Says” to

prepare for the malpractice issues against the three co-Defendant
physicians, in the possession of co-Defendant Maj. Barr since about mid-
04 and these would, by any informed mind, refer to matters before Court.

5. The assertion “they haven’t been served anything about a lawsuit” (to
POPIK) therefore fails under witness testimony11 and a casual review of
the POPIK transcripts for both the co-Defendant Barrs (represented by the
JAG) and the Plaintiff (on the CYEG interview12).

6. Crown KENNEDY was aware of the issues of “mens rea” (for the Plaintiff)
and “willful blindness” (for the RCMP) and still sought to sanction the
accused to press ahead the as per the Barrs’ wishes as of 20 Jun ‘0613.

9
FACS was sent a “Social Crusader” fax 02 Dec ’02 mentioning “The Return of the Jaded”; the
media version ramped up on the (then pending) “loss” of employability to the “medications”
mandated by the Courts. This serves as “proof” of “forseeability” for WOODS and BLAND.
10
WOODS has since denied any “duty of care” to address the written materials on the CD-ROM
but felt competent to base his “medical opinions” on the contents of this material anyway, out of
what might best be described as “intuition”, for lack of a better term.
11
Ms WEILER, Maj. Barr, Maj. Barnes and Josh German are all rebuttal witnesses for the events
of the POPIK investigation and supporting transcripts.
12
POPIK stated “he could see no way this was related to a civil claim” and then immediately shut
down the attempt to explain the connection as “unrelated to the EPO Conditions”, forgetting the
“rules of society” demand the civil litigants reply to papers they’re served as well.
13
The CAT Appeal process is quasi-judicial, and the Alberta Rules of Court say that
“unnecessary litigation is to be avoided”. Further, the WACOWICH decision stated the costs (of
regaining fair employability in appealing the BLAND decision) “shall be in the cause”.
 7. This chain of events, all running exactly against the appellant’s stated
instructions to counsel14, have resulted by following the Courts’ own
demands for “compliance”15. They’re now assessed as not related to the
Courts when plainly, they are clearly marked as such for the attention of
QB Action 0503 19251 co-Defendant Barrs16.

8. It is, therefore, “plain and obvious” (under WACOWICH) that this

represents “oppressive treatment of an appellant“ when the materials
demanded by the Courts (being the “proof” of FACS’ care and efforts to
clear the record for his own children) are used out of context simply to
again sanction the appellant via “breaches” imposed on contradictory
testimony when suspect materials17 are presented to Crown.

14
Counsel was instructed many times to deal with the CIC on the “value systems” and also, that
third-party discussion of the medical issue “cannot be allowed to happen at all, period” or at the
risk of pending civil litigation. (It’s all been proven to be “hearsay” and is not an “accredited
medical conclusion” if it’s not a result of dialog between the pilot and a Flight Surgeon.)
15
The Courts have demanded “proof” of the results of FACS’ “care” (which was the contested TC
Refs and “Details for Damages” suffered by the battery, under WACOWICH).
16
The flagged entries are “Insight on What’s Happening” and “VERY SERIOUS WARNING”,
which both pre-date the suspect charges by several weeks and on the record under SINGH.
17
The contested TC Refs proving “loss”, the AHE Report negating the “diagnostics”, and the
warnings of pending litigation are “the results of the Courts’ assessments” as demanded.
 Civil Aviation Tribunal Rules
Publications : 2002-2003 Annual Report

• Short Title
• Interpretation
• Application
• General
• Service
• Filing
• Holiday
• Applications
• Extending or Abridging Time
• Preliminary Procedures
• Adjournments
• Witnesses
• Proceeding
• Argument
• Appeals
• Determination

Short Title
The Supreme Court has held
"where private party 'A' sues 1. These Rules may be cited as the Civil Aviation Tribunal Rules.
private party 'B' relying on the
common law and where no act
of government is relied upon to Interpretation
support the action, the Charter
will not apply" (entered under 2. In these Rules,
Master Wacowich) but the case
hinges on the actions or "Act" means the Aeronautics Act;
omissions of the RCMP, DND
(CIC) and Transport Canada
"party" means a party to a proceeding;
with the Charter being "the
highest law in the land" for
DND's Conflict-of-Interest "proceeding" means a review under section 6.9, 7 or 7.1 of the Act, an
guidelines. appeal under section 7.2 or 8.1 of the Act or a proceeding under section 7.9
of the Act;

"registrar" means a registrar of the Tribunal, and includes a deputy registrar;

 "registry" means the principal office of the Tribunal in the National Capital
Region or such other offices as the Tribunal may establish from time to time.

Application

3. These Rules apply to all proceedings.

General

This "service of a document" was 4. Where a procedural matter not provided for by the Act or by these Rules
the TC Refs to meet the terms of the arises during the course of any proceeding, the Tribunal may take any
"Consent Order" and "House action it considers necessary to enable it to settle the matter effectively,
Arrest" (also proving "loss" and completely and fairly.
"damages" on the third "grounding"),
and led to the "Goss" transcripts as Service
"stuff they don't want to be bothered
with". 5. Service of a document, other than a summons referred to in section 14,
shall be effected by personal service or by registered mail.
Such was the nature of the
defamation suit and "Abuse of
Process"/Prosecutorial Misconduct 6. Where service of a document is effected by registered mail, the date of
under Crown Kennedy. service is the date of receipt of the document.

Filing
The eSnips portal allows for posts
7. Where a party is required or authorized to file a document with the
and exhibits for TC's specific
Tribunal, the document may be filed by depositing it in the registry
concerns and makes these available
personally, by mailing it or sending it by courier to the registry or by
for the CPO, the JAG (CIC), RCMP &
transmitting it to the registry by telex, facsimile or other electronic means of
Crown, CAME crowd and anybody
communication if the registry has the necessary facilities for accepting
else with an interest in Canadian
transmission in such manner.
Civics.

The case is, essentially, TC vs. CHA 8. The date of filing of a document with the Tribunal is the date of receipt of
(FACS) vs. CIC in a three-way pull the document at the registry, as evidenced on the document by means of
over the appellant's "Health Care" the filing stamp of the Tribunal.
choices and therefore, career
interests. Holiday

9. Where a time limit prescribed by or pursuant to the Act or these Rules

falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the time limit is extended to the next
following business day.

Applications

10. (1) An application for any relief or order, other than a request for review
under section 6.9, 7 or 7.1 of the Act or an appeal under section 7.2 or 8.1
of the Act, shall be in writing and filed with the Tribunal unless, in the
opinion of the Tribunal, circumstances exist to allow an application to be
dealt with in some other manner.

(2) An application shall fully set out the grounds on which it is based and
 shall specify the relief or order requested.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), where a party makes an application, the

Tribunal shall serve notice of the application on each other party and shall
afford each other party a reasonable opportunity to make representations.

(4) The Tribunal may dispose of an application on the basis of the material
submitted by each party or, if in its opinion there exist exigent
circumstances, on the basis of the material submitted by the applicant only.

(5) The Tribunal, upon considering the material submitted to it, shall render
its determination of an application in writing and shall serve on each party a
copy of the determination forthwith after the determination has been
rendered.

Extending or Abridging Time

11. The Tribunal may extend or abridge a time prescribed by or pursuant to

these Rules for performing any act or doing any thing on such terms, if any,
The "Consent Order" and as seem just.
FACS' attention via "House
Arrest" (post-trial) resulted in a Preliminary Procedures
medical history easily rebutted
on "the balance of probabilities"
12. The Tribunal may, orally or in writing, direct that the parties appear
and "weight of evidence".
before a member of the Tribunal at a specified date, time and place for a
The "drop" of the TC References conference, or consult each other and submit suggestions in writing to the
led to the "Goss" decision and Tribunal, for the purpose of assisting it in the consideration of
"EPO Event" but rebuttal
witnesses lead to the assertion of (a) the admission or proof of certain facts;
"Abuse of Process".
(b) any procedural matter;
These have been bundled as
"FACSWeb III" with the contested (c) the exchange between the parties of documents and exhibits proposed
letter (Danforth, March 17 2004) to be submitted during a proceeding;
now acting as "proof for the
Courts", but indicative of negligent,
(d) the need to call particular witnesses; and
irresponsible and injurious forensic
practices.
(e) any other matter that may aid in the simplification of the evidence and
disposition of the proceeding.
The eSnips portal works with the
"FACSWeb" media (and "Strike
Hornet" applets) as a distributed Adjournments
solution for Civil Litigation, claiming
damages suffered by the "battery" 13. At any time, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party or on its
and "loss" to the torts of "defamation" own motion, adjourn a proceeding on such terms, if any, as seem just.
and "negligence".
Witnesses

14. (1) At the request of a party, the registrar shall issue a summons in
blank for a person to appear as a witness before the Tribunal and the
summons may be completed by the party requesting it.
 (2) A summons shall be served personally on the person to whom it is
directed at least 48 hours before the time fixed for the attendance of the
person.

(3) At the time of service of a summons on a person, the party requesting

the appearance of the person shall pay fees and allowances to the person
in accordance with Rule 42 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.

15. (1) Where a person has been summoned to appear as a witness before
the Tribunal and does not appear, the party that requested the issuance of
the summons may apply to the Tribunal for a warrant directing a peace
officer to cause the person who failed to appear to be apprehended
anywhere in Canada and, subsequent to the apprehension, to be

(a) detained in custody and forthwith brought before the Tribunal until his
presence as a witness is no longer required; or

(b) released on a recognizance, with or without sureties, conditional on the

person's appearance at the date, time and place specified therein to give
evidence at a proceeding.

(2) An application made pursuant to subsection (1) shall contain information

indicating that

(a) the person named in the summons

(i) was served with the summons in accordance with subsection 14(2),

(ii) was paid or offered witness fees and allowances in accordance with
subsection 14(3), and

(iii) failed to attend or remain in attendance before the Tribunal in

accordance with the requirements of the summons; and

(b) the presence of the person named in the summons is material to the
proceeding.
Written Interrogatories balance
the "Goss" EPO and transcripts, Proceeding
the Popik investigation and
MacKay on appeal (under the 16. (1) Witnesses at a proceeding shall be subject to examination and
Charter's s.13). cross-examination orally on oath or solemn affirmation.

(2) The Tribunal may order a witness at a proceeding to be excluded from

The transition to Internet the proceeding until called to give evidence.
technologies allow for
diagnostic criteria, Case Law,
digital media from the CPO and (3) The Tribunal may, with the consent of each party, order that any fact be
scanned documentation for full proved by affidavit.
colour representation and
allows for unlimited distribution (4) The Tribunal may inspect any property or thing for the purpose of
at nominal cost and follows the evaluating the evidence.
Alberta Rules of Court (186) for
"information, data or other thing
that is capable of being
represented or reproduced
visually or by sound, or both".
Written arguments have been
exhaustive in the form of Argument
streaming faxes as the "Goss"
decision, Wacowich decision
17. The Tribunal may direct a party to submit written argument in addition to
and "Discoveries" of FACS'
oral argument.
records and findings come to a
head together.
Appeals
The points are summarized in
the "Special Chambers Session" 18. (1) An appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to section 7.2 or 8.1 of the Act
briefing. shall be commenced by filing in writing with the Tribunal a request for
appeal.
The "accredited medical
conclusion" and "diagnostics" are (2) A request for appeal shall include a concise statement of the grounds on
contested as libellous, knowingly which the appeal is based.
negligent and inherently random
in nature. (3) A copy of a request for appeal shall be served by the Tribunal on each
other party within ten days after filing the request.

19. Where a request for appeal has been filed with the Tribunal, the Tribunal
shall serve on the parties to the appeal

(a) a notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal; and

(b) a copy of the record referred to in subsection 37(8) of the Act, respecting
the proceedings to which the appeal relates.

Determination

20. (1) The Tribunal shall render its determination in writing at the
conclusion of a proceeding or as soon as is practicable after a proceeding.

(2) For the purpose of calculating the period within which a party may
appeal a determination, the determination is deemed to be made on the day
on which it is served on the party.

(3) The Tribunal shall serve on each party a copy of a determination

forthwith after the determination has been rendered.

Note

These Rules have been embodied for convenience of reference only.

For purposes of interpretation of the law, the original Rules should be
consulted.

Previous | Next

[ HOME | TOP | BACK ]

Last Modified: 2003-12-03 [ Important Notices ]
Re: File # 2006-114501 – Appearance 18 Dec ‘06

Analysis and Disclosure – Crown Counsel KENNEDY

Re: The Malicious Prosecution/Prosecutorial Misconduct Issue

This section addressed how Transport Canada’s Aviation Enforcement Branch

handles the “Analysis of Legislation” for aviation matters.

The case is such that the Plaintiff did not have an actionable “Conspiracy with
Intent to Injure” until the events of 2004 led to Crown’s efforts to justify the
“olanzapine” and the “Bland” review, which would have been a dead-end road
to nowhere under the terms of the “House Arrest” and “Consent Order”.

“Goss” and the “EPO Conditions” brought the QB Action “Discoveries” and CAT
Appeal “Disclosure” together under MacKay on 18 Dec ’06 (for the Criminal
Code issues) but the malpractice/battery issues and CAT are running at crossed
purposes.

Recently amended Criminal Code “ethics” issues were presented to Crown from
the period of May 2006 to December 2006; Crown representatives sought fit to
press ahead a nominal sanction anyway and so met the standard for
“Prosecutorial Misconduct” on appeal.

*****

Match this section of the Criminal Code with the CADENCE Vol. 17 and the
article about “Where are You Pointing Your Ethical Compass?”; included as the
“stuff in the mailbox we don’t want” under Goss:

WHEREAS the pervasive, intrusive and instantaneous nature of modern media

news coverage increases the pressure on counsel in judicial proceedings to
participate publicly in news events in the interests of their clients or in other
ways extend their activities as counsel to include conduct considered
unethical under the rules of their profession;

AND WHEREAS it is in the public interest that conduct of that kind be made
criminal and not merely unethical in order to prevent the administration of
justice being adversely affected;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding immediately after section 134
the following:

C.C. 135(1)

Every person who Crown Counsel Kennedy

while acting or purporting to act as As Crown Advisor to the POPIK EPO
counsel Investigation
in respect of any anticipated, current or Referring to the Queen’s Bench Action
completed judicial proceedings (for libel, negligence and battery)
makes any public statement of facts in Stated as Count 1 that the CAT Appeal
relation to the judicial proceedings Exhibits were not “Court Documents”
out of the presence of the tribunal The Transportation Appeal Board of
Canada (and it’s “Case Presentation
Officer”)
Or body authorized by law to conduct The “accused” is the self-represented
the proceedings Plaintiff for Queen’s Bench and CPO
for the CAT
(a) knowing that some or all of the facts The EPO Statements deny the lawsuit
asserted in the statement are not true, but the “FACS” Arrows for co-
Defendant Bentley BARR’s entry
implicate FACS and CHA
(b) having no reasonable grounds for The “mental health issues” cited are
believing that the facts asserted in the the lawsuit and this is the “reasonable
statement are true, or grounds”
(c) having failed to take reasonable The Plaintiff asserts “wilful blindness”
measures for the co-Defendants’ knowingly
“enabling” of Cst Poirier’s misconduct
before making the statement to Hand-delivered and annotated
ascertain the truth
the facts asserted in the statement Are that the “mental health issues” are
what the Plaintiff is suing on
is guilty of an indictable offence The Plaintiff asserts “Abuse of
Process” for the Crown’s handling of
the CAT Appeal on this docket
and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding two years.
 Accelerated Solutions Inc.
Custom Applications for the PC
10116 105 Ave
Edmonton, Alberta T5H 0K2

Discovery of Records (from The Alberta Rules of Court) and CAT Issues

The case of “German vs. Capital Health Authority, DND, & the RCMP” has been rolled into
three main streams as “QB Action 0503 19251” (for battery, Breach of Confidence & libel)
and the CAT (for negligent forensics).

The firm of Bennett Jones is handling the three co-Defendant Physicians and the
Appellant is self-represented as the Plaintiff (for Queen’s Bench) and the “Expert Witness”
for the CAT Appeal, contesting FACS’ “diagnostics” as random and the co-Defendants’
actions since Mar ‘02 as vexatious and irresponsible.

The Appellant is following from the CADENCE Vol. 17 “Conflict Mediation” series and
drawing the lessons learned as much as possible to make the CAT a learning experience
for the malpractice trial, using the “James Blonde” web page to draw attention to common
legal terms and errors.

As FACS’ job is to have “one foot in a Court Room and one in a hospital” (as does Ms
Barr and the Appellant) they have nobody but themselves to pin the damages on when the
facts of the case come full-circle.

*****

Alberta Rules of Court:

PART 13

Division 1 Discovery of Records

Definition of Record

186 In this Part, "record" includes the physical representation or record of any information,
data or other thing that is or is capable of being represented or reproduced visually or by
sound1, or both.

1
The appellant relies on the "BJComplaint.wav", an audio recording that pre-dates the Barrs' allegations of 25 Dec
'01 and (along with the co-Defendants' supervisory assessment skills) is the event behind the CHAP Report. This file
mates with the audio "FACSWeb" tunes to speak to "motive" and "intent".

The appellant couldn't leave his son behind in good conscience but the "Consent Order" demands and FACS' "care"
ensured that the appellant couldn't take him to a new environment either. (This is the "social dynamics" under the AHE
Report of 22 Mar '02 and speaks to the issue of "forseeability" of the "loss").
 AR 390/68 5186:172/99

When a record or question is relevant and material

186.1 For the purpose of this Part, a question or record is relevant and material only if the
answer to the question, or if the record, could reasonably be expected

(a) to significantly help determine one or more of the issues raised in the
pleadings2, or

(b) to ascertain evidence3 that could reasonably be expected to significantly help

determine one or more of the issues raised in the pleadings.

AR 277/95511;172/99

Affidavit of records must be filed

187(1) Every party to proceedings must, in accordance with this Rule, file and serve on. all
other parties an affidavit of records4, unless the Court grants an order under Rule 188.1
permitting a late filing or service of the affidavit.

(2) A third party and a party served under Rule 69 who has filed a statement of defence
must, within 90 days of that filing, file and serve on all other parties an affidavit of records,
unless the Court grants an order under Rule 188.1 permitting a late filing of the affidavit5.

2
The main issue is the balancing of FACS' diagnostic criteria, which resulted in the history of "schizoaffective
psychosis" (contested) with the rebuttal forensics having been completely ignored of negated over the period of 17 Dec
'01 - March '04, and the subsequent events attempting to support the co-Defendants' diagnostic skills and lock into Dr.
Bland's "recommendation" as someone's good idea.
3
The rebuttal forensics include the "Here is the Math" e-mail of 28 Dec '01 (reappearing as "Affidavit F" for the
Goss EPO Affidavit), the CHAP Report, then definition of "enabler", the BACH Report, FACS' letter to Dr. Bland, the
POIRIER investigation and Continuation Reports and the "Consent Order" dating to the summer of '02.
4
The TC Refs were the "stuff in the mailbox" and (along with the "Can-Says") that prep for the CAT Appeal and QB
0503 19251, contesting Dr. Bland's "recommendation" as negligent and careless. The "EPO Event" then linked "this
time" with "the last time" but there were rebuttal witnesses who are hostile to the case and now co-Defendants in the
Civil Action... under the QR&Os (21.19 and 21.21) for "when a Claim Against the Crown seems likely".
5
"The Court" in QB 0503 19251 would include the McKay Decision of 18 Dec '06 (on appeal as an Abuse of
Process), as well as the "Wacowich and Hanebury" decisions, which mention that "it must be assumed that all
information in the pleadings is accurate" (thus negating the Goss EPO “Closed Hearing” as contradictory). The CAT is
more free-form and relies on the Sollereder Report to re-establish "fitness".

Also, the CAT is "quasi-judicial" and allows for an informal approach, with the overall design such that the CAT
Appeal is tried on the "weight of evidence" and "balance of probabilities" for all materials available to the Courts. (The
Charter then strikes as inadmissible any evidence that, in regard to the overall case, "brings the administration of justice
into disrepute"; ergo the "Disrepute-o-Meter" to link to the Barrs' assertions that "his meds were helping" and
POIRIER's misconduct.)
(3) A person for whose benefit an action is prosecuted or defended, or the assignor of a
chose in action upon which the action is brought, is to be considered as a party to the
proceedings for the purposes of discovery of records6.

(4) Rule 548 does not apply to a time limit specified in this Rule.

(5) The time limit for filing and serving an affidavit of records in divorce, parentage and
maintenance, matrimonial property and domestic relations6 actions is

(a) 90 days after a written notice is served by a party on the other party or parties
requiring that this Rule be complied with.

*****
CAT Issues

REVIEW PROCESS FOR A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THAT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED,

CANCELLED, OR REFUSED TO BE RENEWED

If a Medical Certificate is suspended, cancelled or not renewed, a licence holder may wish
to arrange a meeting, either by telephone or in writing, with the Regional Aviation Medical
Officer, (Dr. JA Danforth, #1140 Canada Place, 9700 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton AB, T5J
4C3, telephone [780] 495-3848 or 1-877-855-4643 to review and discuss his medical
assessment7. At the meeting, the Regional Aviation Medical Officer will review the medical
information relevant to the assessment. As a rule the licence holder may see these
documents in the presence of the Regional Aviation Medical Officer and ask questions
concerning the content of the documents8. In the case of sensitive or complicated medical
information, the Regional Aviation Medical Officer may elect to refer these to the licence

The CAT is quasi-judicial as otherwise, the costs of the appeal could be out of reach for many aviators with a fair
claim. These appellants would then lose their right of "fair access to the Courts" due to the administrative burden
imposed and this is the "vexatious conduct" under Kennedy and POPIK, as they had from May '06 to Dec '06 to drop
the charges but pressed the sanction on knowingly perjured testimony and suppressed the forensic record.
6
The Barrs are “party to the proceedings” as is the JAG (via the Air Cadet Detachment at LFWA) and therefore, must
be served with the “Affidavit of Records”. The RCMP are in the loop via POPIK and the issue of “wilful blindness”
was addressed at the CYEG Interview where the investigating authority saw “no relation” to the Civil Action and the
CAT Appeal.
7
The CAT will balance the medical findings of Dr. Sollereder, a qualified Aviation Medical Examiner, with the
(contested) recommendation put forth by Dr. Bland dating to Match ’04. The case then can be made for “Prosecutorial
Misconduct” as the RCMP were relying on perjured testimony and hearsay from a series of hostile witnesses to make
their case, suppressing defence materials as “not meeting the test for Court Documents” in the process.
8
The “questions concerning the contents of the documents” will be put to the co-Defendants in QB Action 0503
19251 to support the Civil Claim asserting battery, negligent forensics, breach of confidence and the diagnostic criteria
as put forth and supported by co-Defendants Curtis WOODS and Ms BARR.
holder's personal physician9 who can better explain the complications. In such cases the
licence holder will be asked to designate a physician to receive these reports10.

Should the licence holder wish an independent review of the Transport Canada licensing
decision, they must file a request for a review by the Civil Aviation Tribunal, by the date
specified in the notice which suspends, cancels, or refuses to renew their Medical
Certificate11. The tribunal will acknowledge the request and subsequently set a hearing
date.

Prior to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review hearing, the document
holder may continue to provide new or additional medical evidence to the Regional
Aviation Medical officer with a view to proving medical fitness12. This in no way prejudices
the document holder's right to a Tribunal hearing and may result in a 'fit' assessment
before a hearing is held.

9
Dr. Albrecht is in the case history as the holder’s personal physician but is in a Conflict-of-Interest as he was visited
by Cst POIRIER without delegated authority (in ’02) and referred the Appellant to co-Defendant Roger BLAND (on
’04). He was slated to be the “Expert Witness” for the CAT and there’s a “Can-Say Albrecht” with the Questions &
Answers for the Appeal.
10
These reports have recently been made available through “Discoveries” via the form of Bennett Jones and audited
for “hearsay”, “speculation” and Charter of Rights (s. 6.2(b)) violations.
11
The “Refusal to Renew” dating to March ’04 was refused due to an excessive delay in filing but this was an
administrative issue. Also, the appellant had to me off of all medication for a nominal six months prior to being
eligible for a renewed aviation medical and the window for appeal is 30 days.
12
The issues of “forseeability” and “remoteness” are addressed in the “FACSWeb III” media and multi-media
extensions, based on the AHE Report of 22 Mar ’02 (for Crown) and the errors and omissions under FACS #25909.
TRANSPORTATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL OF CANADA

The Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada was created in 2001 by a revision to the
Aeronautics Act. One of its purposes is to review a decision by the Minister of Transport,
to suspend, cancel, or refuse to renew a Canadian aviation document.

Those individuals affected by such a decision have an opportunity to apply for a review by
the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada13.

The Tribunal is completely independent of Transport Canada and provides a forum in

which a hearing can be conducted promptly, fairly and informally. The document holder is
given the full opportunity to present evidence14 and make representations with respect to
the decision under review.

The following options are open to a licence holder who has been denied a medical
category:

I. Where a Tribunal hearing has been requested

A. You may submit further medical evidence to Transport Canada15 (Regional Aviation
Medical Officer) at any time prior to the hearing;

or

B. You may wait until the Tribunal hearing before providing the new medical evidence and
attempting to prove your fitness. This option is not recommended because it may cause
you unnecessary delay and expense16.

13
This would be the “Court of Competent Jurisdiction” (along with Queen’s Bench) for those who’s rights have been
“infringed or denied” with POIRIER’s misconduct and the Goss decision infringing on “the right to pursue the gaining
of a livelihood” (Charter s. 6.2(b)) and “informed choice in health care services’ via CHA’s values.
14
The new evidence is the report by Dr. Solloreder, the errors and omissions present in the existing FACS trail (based
mostly on the 3rd breach botching the trial on hearsay testimony), and the irrelevant and misleading forensic record that
became the official “recommendation” under Dr. Bland… hinging on an alleged “lack of insight” into events past,
present and future and knowingly erroneous and defamatory remarks addressed prior to Danforth’s TC Confirmation.
15
This is the main purpose of the eSnips portal; to present rebuttal forensics to the three co-Defendant physiatrists, the
Barrs, the St. Albert RCMP and the JAG (based on the CHAP Report and TC Refs from 17 Dec ’01 – Mar ’04).

This same data is to be disclosed under the Alberta Rules of Court to the co-Defendant Barrs (as “proof of treatment as
directed”) and the scene at 23 Holmgren Crescent, which became the core of the “Goss” decision, therefore meets the
standard for “Abuse of Process” (for the JAG) and “Prosecutorial Misconduct” (for POPIK and POIRIER).
16
The costs incurred in proving “fitness” are borne by the applicant and the Wacowich decision stated “the costs shall
be in the cause”. The primary cause of the action is the “Consent Order” demands and also, Dr. Bland’s refusal to
review his decision (based on knowingly erroneous and irrelevant data) prior to the TC Refs being provided under Dr.
Danforth.
Analysis – 1061590 Ltd. V. Ontario Jockey Club (CHA Authorities [5])

The relevant parts of Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure are:

20.01 (1) A plaintiff may, after the defendant has delivered a statement of defence
or served a notice of motion, move with supporting affidavit material or other
evidence for summary judgment on all or part of the claim in the statement of
claim.

20.04 (1) In response to affidavit material or other evidence supporting a motion

for summary judgment, a responding party may not rest on the mere allegations or
denials of the party's pleadings, but must set out, in affidavit material or other
evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial1.

(2) Where the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect
to a claim or defence2, the court shall grant summary judgment accordingly.

35 The purpose of Rule 20 is clear. The rule is intended to remove from the trial system,
through the vehicle of summary judgment proceedings, those matters in which there is no
genuine issue for trial: Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie (1990),75 O.R. (2d) 225,45 c.p .C.
(2d) 168 (Gen Div, Irving Ungerman Ltd v. Galanis (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 545, 83 D.L.R.
(4th) 734 (C.A.). The motions judge hearing a motion for summary judgement is
required to take a hard look at the evidence in determining whether there is, or is not, a
genuine issue for trial. The onus of establishing that there is no triable issue is one the
moving party, in this case the purchaser. However, the respondent on motion for
summary judgment must lead trump or risk losing: See Rule 20.04(1). Generally, if
there is an issue of credibility which is material3, a trial will be required: see Irving
Ungerman, supra.

36 It seems to me that the date on which the evidence available to the purchaser must be
assessed is, the date of termination, in this case May 20, 1994. Except to the extent that
subsequently acquired information having to do with environmental contamination and

1
The facts showing a “genuine issue for trial” are contained in the diversion of events as represented in
the AHE Report of 22 March ’02 and the “Bland Report” and how the medical (psychiatric) observations
accrued in the face of numerous clear warnings of pending litigation. Also, the issue outstanding is how
the Plaintiff might be expected to keep both the Courts’ (FACS) providers, Transport Canada’s specific
concerns and the Plaintiff’s career needs addressed concurrently without resorting to litigation on appeal.
2
The claim for the Plaintiff is that the “House Arrest” and “Consent Order” demands were fatally flawed
from the outset due to CHA’s ingrained gender biases, wilfully blind investigative services for the
POIRIER and POPIK investigations, and the failure to meet a required standard of diligence (in
overlooking the fax with the definition of “enabler” for Curtis Woods and the CD-ROM referenced on
FACS’ “Release of Clinical Records” for co-Defendant Dr. Bland).
3
The core issue is the “credibility” of the “Bland” recommendation and resulting “accredited medical
conclusion”, deemed “absolutely disqualifying” for TC’s concerns but random and injurious by the
Plaintiff; such is the nature of “Damages Suffered by the Battery” under “Wacowich” vs. the efforts to
subvert the Civil Claim via “Goss” and the St. Albert Crown.
soil conditions may reflect on the reasonableness of the purchaser's termination of the
contract, I do not think that information made available to the purchaser after May
20,1994 can affect the legitimacy of the purchaser's May 20,1994 termination of the
agreement. In any case; in my view, there was nothing which developed after May 20,
1994 which serves to materially dilute the opinions in respect of environmental
contamination and soil conditions provided by the purchaser's experts4.

37 Both Mr. Lamek, for the vendor, and Mr. Pape, for the purchaser, agreed that the
central issue in this appeal is whether the motions judge was correct in concluding that
there was no genuine issue for trial, on the evidence before him.

38 In his written reasons [reported (1994), 39 R.P.R. (2d) 224], the motions judge
correctly identified the central issue, in these terms [p. 228]:

The sole question is whether a genuine issue exists as to whether

the Purchaser believed, acting reasonably5, the conditions for
termination provided for in the agreement of purchase and sale
existed on May 19, 1994.

4
New developments since the “Wacowich” decision appeared under the Barrs’ “EPO Affidavit” as
testimony supporting FACS’ diagnostic skills, negating the “Damages” and “loss” as “Health Care of Good
Quality” and attempting to dissociate the rebuttal forensics addressing the record as “unrelated” and
“lacking a stamp for the Courts”; a formality not required for the CAT Appeal process. Such is the nature
of “Abuse of Process” and “Prosecutorial Misconduct” under the Crown Liabilities Act for the Barrs and
POPIK (via “Kennedy”).

Also, there has been a fresh (physical) exam provided via Dr. Sollereder to match against the “Bland”
recommendation for “reassessment after a considerable period of time”; an issue to balance on Transport
Canada’s “Refusal to Renew”, on Appeal via the Transport Appeal Board of Canada.
5
The issue for the “Bland” review is whether any of CHA’s medical staff, Crown Representatives or the
CIC acted reasonably or prudently in light of the full facts and rebuttal forensics, contained in the CHAP,
which (since presented on the initial arrest of 30 Dec ’01 and to Col. McQuillan on appeal) “should have
been known to them under the circumstances”.
 Docket No: 0703-0072-A
CAT Appeal LVC AA261961

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

- and –

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN

Applicant

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT OF CHARTER RIGHTS

On appeal:

WHEREAS, in the interest of justice and the fair administration of contradictory matters
before the Courts across several legal channels;

And WHEREAS the appellant is self-represented as Plaintiff asserting negligent forensic

assessments resulting in “loss” and tertiary damages (not foreseen by the Presiding
Justices);

And WHEREAS the co-Defendants will be called to answer to allegations made against
them with clarity and accuracy;

The appellant prepares this Court Briefing to support the Notice of Infringement of
Charter Rights on Appeal under Docket 0703-0072-A.

1. The Appellant will address the following Rules of Courts and Judgments on
Appeal, excerpted from the Common Law and annotated with footnotes to brief the co-
Defendants on matters before the Transport Appeal Board of Canada.

2. The Appellant appends these matters to the QB Action 0503 19251, under the
Memorandum of Decision issued by Master WACOWICH (6 Dec ’01) and notes the
costs incurred under this decision “shall be in the cause”.
Rule 129(1)(b) and (d)

In Decock v. Alberta (2000), 255 A.R. 234 (C.A.), leave to appeal allowed (2000),
293A.R. 388 (note) (S.C.C.) (Notice of discontinuance filed September 10, 2001) Russell
J.A. said at p. 257:

It is difficult to conceive of a claim which discloses a cause of action and which

could be considered scandalous, frivolous, embarrassing or an abuse of process.

Despite this comment, the Rule exists and courts have used it to strike out pleadings. In
Dykunv. Odishaw (2000), 267 A.R. 318 (Q.B.) this court adopted the following passage
from the Ontario High Court in Lang Michener and Fabian, Re (1987), 37 D.L.R. (4 )
685 at 691:
...a proceeding is vexatious if it satisfies any of the following tests:

(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction1 constitutes a vexatious proceeding;

(b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no
possible good2, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the
action is vexatious;

(c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the
harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings3 brought for
purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights4;

(d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised
tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented5, often

1
The WACOWICH decision demands particulars for the “loss” and “damages” suffered by the Court’s
imposition of judicial will (demanding “proof” of the results of FACS’ attention) and the co-Defendants’
“Consent Order” issue. The GOSS decision subverts this process and introduces “access conditions” based
on contradictory testimony.
2
The GOSS decision, EPO “breaches” and sanction simply extends the case with unnecessary litigation
and attempts to prosecute the Plaintiff for complying with the demands of the Crown and the Civil Courts.
3
The GOSS decision was based on testimony from the co-Defendant BARRs, easily rebutted by
witnesses at the scene and a casual review of the supporting Affidavit (“Exhibit F”).
4
The POPIK interview asserts that “the Civil Action is your right” then immediately subverts the fair
administration and process of this Right of Appeal (under the Charter’s s. 6.2(b)).
5
Co-Defendant BLAND’s assertion that “alcohol might have been a factor” (contested) is repeated and
supplemented with the assertion “his face was red, his arms were waving” but the GOSS transcripts state
and the hearing verified that the Plaintiff was attempting to re-enter a vehicle and peacefully leave the
scene.
with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in
earlier proceedings;

(e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole
history of the matter6 and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action7;

(f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful
proceedings8 is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are
vexatious;

(g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial
decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.

*****

Abuse of process is not a closed category: Hurley v. Co-operators General Insurance

Co., 160 D.L.R. (4th) 645 (N.S.C.A.). There the Court says, pp. 658-59:

For the purpose of this appeal, it is neither necessary, nor desirable, to define, or to limit,
the phrase "abuse of the process of the court", as that phrase is used in Civil Procedure
Rule 14.25. It is sufficient to note, only, that the phrase, in the context of rule 14.25,
contemplates that, in commencing, or maintaining, a legal proceeding9, the process of the
court is being misused, or is being used for an improper purpose; as opposed to an action
being brought, or maintained, for the assertion of legitimate rights.

****

On its face this pleading sets out the elements of a cause of action. While the applicants
submit that a plea of conspiracy must allege that the predominant purpose of the
conspiracy requires the intent to injure (and this has not been pleaded), the law in Canada
is otherwise. In Hunt v. T & N plc, Wilson J. wrote “an actionable conspiracy will exist
if the defendants combine to act unlawfully, their conduct is directed toward the plaintiff

6
The “whole history of the matter” includes the events of 25 Dec ’01 (actually starting 17 Dec ’01)
through Dr. Bland’s “review”, the conclusions reached by the three co-Defendant physicians, the AHE
Report of 22 Mar ’02, and the Barrs’ contradictory testimony on the “service” of the (contested) TC
References addressing the Barrs’ demands.
7
The “Cause of Action” for QB 0503 19251 is the “loss” of employability due to Dr. Bland’s “review”;
itself knowingly anchored in irrelevant data (hearsay).
8
The Crown’s efforts, as well as the Barrs’ CIC efforts, are tax-funded while the defence of the same has
been borne by the Applicant (while earning 10% of his potential for the period reporting for “whatever
treatment is directed” by FACS).
9
Here the appellant relies on the KENNEDY decision that the CAT and QB Action materials are not
“court papers” (lacking a stamp) and that the materials were addressed to the Barrs’ children (when they
were to redress the co-Defendants’ libellous assertions and directed to the appellant’s children).
(or the plaintiff and others) and the likelihood of injury to the plaintiff is known to the
defendants or should have been known to them in the circumstances10” (at p. 340).

I note that the Supreme Court of Canada has on two relatively recent occasions cautioned
against the extension of the tort of conspiracy beyond the commercial context11. Estey J.
in Can.Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452
commented at p. 473:

The tort of conspiracy to injure, even without the extension to include a conspiracy to
perform unlawful acts where there is a constructive intent to injure, has been the target of
much criticism throughout the common law world. It is indeed a commercial
anachronism as so aptly illustrated by Lord Diplock in Lonrho ... In fact, the action may
have lost much of its usefulness in our commercial world, and survives in our law as an
anomaly.

Wilson J. in Frame v. Smith, a case which I will discuss more fully later in these reasons,
refused to extend the tort to the family law context. She said at para.19 in Frame:

Although “the law concerning the scope of the tort of conspiracy is far from clear”, the
criticisms which have been levelled at the tort give good reason to pause before extending
it beyond the commercial context.

In the context of this case which is not a commercial case, it is important to clearly plead
the particulars of the alleged conspiracy. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Normart
anagement v. West Hill Redevelopment Co. et al 155 D.L.R. (4 ) 627 described a proper
pleading of conspiracy at para. 21 as:

The statement of claim should describe who the several parties are and their relationship
with each other12. It should allege the agreement between the defendants to conspire, and
state precisely what the purpose or what were the objects of the alleged conspiracy13, and
10
The Access Report presents a forensic audit flagging “Main e-Mails for FACS” for the benefit of the
co-Defendant Barrs, addressing the forensics which “should have been known to them in the
circumstances”.
11
The QB Action 0503 19251 alleges the co-Defendants have been operating under the military context,
with the core of the case being that the Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC) are real military officers. Thus, issues
such as “dealing with parents”, “the changing attitude of today’s youth” (for the “Consent Order” issue)
and “Problem analysis” (referring to value systems) are addressed in the CHAP Complaint and under the
attention of the DND via the Cadets’ stated valued, principles and goals.
12
The QB Action mentions the CHA medical staff (notably WOODS, BLAND and BARR) as well as the
RCMP who have assessed the appellant as “off medications” when the forensics negate any specific
treatment, and who have consistently taken observations easily addressed with “Freedom of Conscience,
Religion, Belief and Expression” (the “freethinker” issue and the “Hi & Lois” panel) as “indicators of a
future concrete psychiatric diagnosis”.
13
The issue of one of control of access to the appellant’s children (and career interests) via passive-
aggressive manipulation of the medical issue via FACS’ assertions, negligent forensics and contradictory
testimony.
it must then proceed to set forth, with clarity and precision, the overt acts which are
alleged to have been done by each of the alleged conspirators14 in pursuance and in
furtherance of the conspiracy; and lastly, it must allege the injury15 and damage
occasioned to the plaintiff thereby.

***

Claim of Conspiracy Against All of the Defendants

Mr. Hughes claims that all the defendants committed the tort of conspiracy against
Bethany when they “combined together and actively took part in the planning, execution
furtherance, and performance of wrongful acts16 which were done for the predominant
purpose of insuring that Bethany received the alternative treatment from the Health Care
Defendants17” and that resulted in her death18 (para. 41).

On its face this pleading sets out the elements of a cause of action. While the applicants
submit that a plea of conspiracy must allege that the predominant purpose of the
conspiracy requires the intent to injure (and this has not been pleaded19), the law in
Canada is otherwise. In Hunt v. T & N plc, Wilson J. wrote “an actionable conspiracy
will exist if the defendants combine to act unlawfully20, their conduct is directed toward

14
This resulted in the “Demand for Particulars” and “Details for Damages” suffered by the battery and
negligent “review”; a Civil Action that Barrs assert “hasn’t gone anywhere”.
15
The “injury”, specifically, is the “loss” of employability for an interim period as a function of the
Court’s imposition of judicial will, and “loss” of a previously high standing in the community due to
libellous and negligent psychiatric “assessments” (contested).
16
“Discoveries” and an audit of the files of Cameron and Cameron (dated to the Bach Report of 25 Feb
’02) show a clear history of FACS’ psychiatrists defending a long history of negligent psychiatric
observations based on hearsay, slander and biased observations (often arising directly from the co-
Defendant Barrs and attributed to the appellant).
17
The end result of the FACS “House Arrest” and “Consent Order” was to address the Barrs’ concerns at
the direct cost of the Plaintiff’s career and attribute the “therapy” to issues “everybody else but the
appellant” knows he has.
18
This resulted in “loss” of employability to “a history of psychiatric care” that was neither requested,
consented to, deemed wise or responsible by the appellant or avoidable due to the Court’s imposition of
judicial will. (This issue is known as “The Mrs. Doubtfire Issue” and segues to “the changing attitudes of
today’s youth” for the CIC segue.)
19
The appellant has noted that co-Defendant POIRIER assessed him as “off medications” in the summer
of 2002 (on attempt to appeal), the Bland decision was based on knowingly inflammatory and erroneous
observations (hearsay) and the Goss decision reaffirmed the co-Defendants’ position that “he was on meds,
which has helped when he takes them”.
20
The appellant has been subjected to the at least the intentional torts of libel, battery, breach of
confidence, Public Mischief, slander, Abuse of Process and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
the plaintiff (or the plaintiff and others) and the likelihood of injury to the plaintiff is
known to the defendants or should have been known to them in the circumstances21” (at
p. 340).

I note that the Supreme Court of Canada has on two relatively recent occasions cautioned
against the extension of the tort of conspiracy beyond the commercial context. Estey J. in
Can. Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452
commented at p. 473:

The tort of conspiracy to injure, even without the extension to include a conspiracy to
perform unlawful acts where there is a constructive intent to injure, has been the target of
much criticism throughout the common law world. It is indeed a commercial
anachronism as so aptly illustrated by Lord Diplock in Lonrho ... In fact, the action may
have lost much of its usefulness in our commercial world, and survives in our law as an
anomaly.

[60] Wilson J. in Frame v. Smith, a case which I will discuss more fully later in these
reasons, refused to extend the tort to the family law context. She said at para.19 in
Frame:

Although “the law concerning the scope of the tort of conspiracy is far from clear”, the
criticisms which have been levelled at the tort give good reason to pause before extending
it beyond the commercial context22.

In the context of this case which is not a commercial case, it is important to clearly plead
the particulars of the alleged conspiracy23. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Normart
Management v. West Hill Redevelopment Co. et al 155 D.L.R. (4 ) 627 described a
proper pleading of conspiracy at para. 21 as:

The statement of claim should describe who the several parties are and their relationship
with each other24. It should allege the agreement between the defendants to conspire, and
21
The “Access Report” flags two e-mails from the forensic record (“Insight on What’s Happening” and
“VERY SERIOUS WARNING”) dating to 17 Dec ’01, overlooked by three co-Defendant physicians, three
police agencies, the St. Albert School Board, the St. Albert Crown’s Office, Maj. Barr and five lawyers.
22
The case of QB Action 0503 19251 takes the case to the military context via the Cadet Instructor Cadre,
based on the event record from 17 Dec ’01 – 25 Dec ‘01. Specifically, there’s a “Taliban Joke” from the
period, sent to co-Defendant Maj. Barr which loosely predicts “there’s going to be a criminal charge
against me soon and it will be based on bogus observations”. This is further backed by the “DCO
Material” e-mail from the period.
23
The WACOWICH decision resulted in a “Demand for Particulars” and “Details for Damages” arising
from the Court’s imposition of judicial will and the resulting “loss” of employability (plus several years’
lost opportunity costs addressing the “therapy” deemed necessary by FACS but in the face of clear
objections to noted counsel and co-Defendant Curtis Woods).
24
The co-Defendants are the Barrs, CHA’s forensic Assessment Staff and the St. Albert RCMP (who have
all taken liberties addressing the aviation medical).
state precisely what the purpose or what were the objects of the alleged conspiracy, and it
must then proceed to set forth, with clarity and precision, the overt acts which are alleged
to have been done by each of the alleged conspirators in pursuance and in furtherance of
the conspiracy25; and lastly, it must allege the injury26 and damage occasioned to the
plaintiff thereby.

(See also Hovsepian v. Westfair Foods Ltd., 2001 ABQB 700 at para. 105)

The Statement of Claim does not with clarity and precision set out the overt acts which
are alleged to have been done by each of the conspirators. Indeed the pleading of
conspiracy is very brief. I expect that if one asked for particulars, the plaintiffs would
simply repeat all of the other paragraphs in the Statement of Claim; in other words that
the particulars of the unlawful acts of this conspiracy are the “undue influence27,”
“misrepresentation28” and “deceit” previously discussed. While a court should be slow to
strike out a pleading because of lack of particulars, to permit the plaintiffs to pursue the
conspiracy plea against the Watch Tower Defendants against whom there are no other
causes of action, is to enable the plaintiffs to litigate precisely the matters that I have just
struck out29. That would be an abuse of this court’s process30.

25
Since the “loss” incurred in 2004 (contested), the co-Defendants have taken the case to a new level by
issuing a stream of evasive decisions (amounting to “Public Mischief”) in the attempt to justify events past.
26
The “foreseeable injury” was the “loss” of employability to a psychiatric “condition” assessed as
random and based entirely on hearsay, as well as negligent and irresponsible forensic assessments.
27
The issue of “undue influence” is surmised by the dynamic that, as a pilot, the “patient” tells the Flight
Surgeon what his issues are. In the case of QB Action 0503 19251, the co-Defendants have held passive
control of the prerogative to tell the “patient” what his issues are (and attempt to make these decisions, in
hindsight, seem wise and responsible).
28
The direction to counsel was clearly that third-party discussion of the medical issue “cannot be allowed
to happen at all, period” but the record shows where the Barrs’ assessments were parroted and sent to the
appellants “mental health file” even though the co-Defendants were on opposing sides of a (very hostile)
divorce.
29
In the Goss decision, the co-Defendants seek to defend the issues which the WACOWICH decision has
already addressed. Further, the co-Defendant Barrs have stated “they weren’t served anything about a
lawsuit” but the record shows they had to “dig it out of their recycling”; considering it “too painful” to
address.

In rebuttal, the news that the appellant’s aviation career was irrevocably lost (when it’s a result of baseless
information imposed by the co-Defendants) was, to say the least, a “painful” experience due to its
foreseeability.
30
The “Abuse of Process” in the case of QB Action 0503 19251 was the scene at the co-Defendants’
resident (meeting the terms of the “Consent Order”) where the contested TC references were dismissed as
“stuff they don’t want” and their lack of response in addressing the defamation suit, over time, was
assessed as “criminal harassment” on the part of the appellant.
DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this 25th day of July, A.D.
2006.

Kevin Bradley German

Plaintiff, QB Action 0503-19251

TO: Clerk of the Court

AND TO: Agent of the Attorney General of Alberta
 The Four Elements of Tort
There are four elements to a tort, all of which must be present before the court can
make a remedy:

1) Duty: The defendant must owe a legal duty to the victim. A duty is a legally
enforceable obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct. Except
in malpractice and strict liability cases, the duty is set by what a “reasonable
man of ordinary prudence” would have done. There is a general duty to
prevent foreseeable injury to the victim.

The “Insight on What’s Happening” (18 Dec ’01), “VERY SERIOUS WARNING” (17
Dec ’01) and “Maybe the Problem is Somewhere Around Here” (25 Dec ’01) were all
overlooked by the three co-Defendant physicians and Cst POIRIER (and also, all cc’d to
Mr. BARR for the Civil Claim against the Crown).

2) Breach of the duty. The defendant breached that duty.

The filing of the definition of “enabler” and the fact that Dr. Singh’s FACS Assessment
took until 8 Nov ’06 to finally surface from “the system” pretty much says it all.

3) Causation: The breach was the case of an injury to the victim. The causation
does not need to be direct: the defendant’s act (or failure to act) could begin a
continuous sequence of events that ended in the plaintiff’s injury, a so-called
“proximity cause”.

Ms Barr has, in my opinion, a duty to protect her own children’s interests. This does not
mean she needs to suffer an abusive dynamic; it does mean she should be aware that
sending me to a shrink to satisfy her “Consent Order” issues means CHA or DND will
get sued for her actions some day.

Certainly, the three co-Defendant Physicians were told many times they’d get sued.

4) Injury: There must be an injury. In most cases, there must be a physical or

financial injury to the victim, but sometimes emotional distress,
embarrassment, or dignitary harms are adequate for recovery.

You only need to look at my current life situation (“regrettably finding himself on the
brink of bankruptcy”, in Dr. Woods’ words) and “grounded” for the third time to meet
the Barrs’ conflicting demands… and this is the “grounds” Mr. Bondarevich asked for in
Dec ’01.

It was Dr. Singh’s job to prep the courts in ’02 to make sure this didn’t happen…

The TC Refs I’m suing on are the “injury” in question and also, this reflects on her own
children’s medical history (as a function of my own).

It happened, so they’re all sued in Queen’s Bench to recover from all of this now.
Action No: 0503-19251

_____________________________________

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN' BENCH

OF ALBERTA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON
_____________________________________

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF

ALBERTA; CAPT. THERESA MAE
GERMAN; CAPT. BENTLEY BARR; MAJ.
STOKES (JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S
OFFICE); CST. MICHAEL POIRIER (ROYAL
CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE #38758);
DR. VIJAY SINGH AND DR. CURTIS
WOODS (FACS FILE 25909); Prof. ROGER
BLAND (UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA)

Applicants/Defendants

- and -

KEVIN BRADLEY GERMAN

Respondent/Plaintiff
_____________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF
THE RESPONDENT
To be heard of July 27,2007

Kevin Bradley GERMAN

10116 105 Ave
Edmonton, Alberta
T5H 0K2

_____________________________________