A former Good Samaritan Society worker who filed a court application seeking justice, compensation and access to her locked-in retirement account has been issued a notice that her case appears frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta found the application appeared problematic on its face and directed the applicant to clarify several aspects of her case or risk having it struck out entirely.
The applicant filed an application in November 2025 against Good Samaritan Society and one of its managers, seeking justice, compensation, back pay, a mental capacity assessment for a former colleague, and unlocking of her locked-in retirement account.
She stated her grounds were that she was “not properly terminated/offboarded” and claimed she received neither an acceptance letter for her tendered resignation nor a complete record of employment, leading to cumulative grievances.
In support of her application, the worker relied on the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Employment Standards Code, the Personal Information Protection Act, and what appeared to be internal human resources policies of Good Samaritan Society.
The worker’s affidavit stated she “feels” she was “sabotaged to be forced to quit” following several workplace events.
Multiple proceedings
Counsel for Good Samaritan Society wrote to the court in November 2025 requesting review of the application under Civil Practice Note 7, which sets out summary procedures for assessment of claims that appear frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.
The court noted the applicant referred to a tribunal where Employment Insurance was the commission, likely the federal Social Security Tribunal of Canada or the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. She referred to a denied appeal and instructions to take the matter to judicial review in Federal Court instead.
The court found the application may be vexatious in that the applicant appeared to be pursuing multiple proceedings in different forums hoping for a positive result, or an abuse of process in that she was not following established appeal processes for her legal or administrative proceedings.
However, the court also noted the applicant may be unsure of where to turn given the multiple forms of relief she sought arising from her numerous grievances with her former employer.
Questions for clarification
The court directed the applicant to file a written submission of no more than 10 pages within 14 days if she wished to respond to the notice.
The court suggested the applicant address several questions, including the status of her proceedings before the Social Security Tribunal or the Employment Insurance Commission, and why she believed the Court of King’s Bench had jurisdiction to challenge those findings.
The court noted the applicant stated her status was “off on paid leave” but that she was “still employed without being paid” and also that she tendered her resignation unwillingly. The court asked her to clarify her current employment status.
The court also asked what action, if any, she had taken with provincial regulators such as Alberta Occupational Health and Safety, the Workers Compensation Board, the Alberta Human Rights Commission and Employment Standards. It appeared she may have submitted at least one complaint to Alberta Health Services concerning dietary health in the workplace, but the status of any ongoing regulatory proceedings was unclear.
Regarding the applicant’s Charter references, the court noted it was unclear who she alleged owed her Charter rights and how they were breached. The court noted generally only governments have obligations under the Charter, not private individuals or organizations.
If the applicant does not file a written submission by the deadline, the court will make a final decision on whether the application should be struck out in whole or in part.
If she does file a submission, the respondents have seven days to provide a written reply of up to 10 pages.
The court directed counsel for the respondents to prepare an interim order staying the action until the Civil Practice Note 7 process is complete.
The court provided the applicant with information about free legal resources and legal guidance services available in Lethbridge.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v Good Samaritan Society, 2026 ABKB 28 (CanLII).
