Litany of persecution accusations dismissed in $10-million suit

Parker v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2004 CarswellMan 63, 2004 MBQB 13 (Man. Master)

On May 6, 2002, Edward Parker filed a $10-million claim against the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta (WCB).

He alleged the WCB had:

•put him under surveillance;

•fabricated evidence against him to have him accused of defrauding the WCB;

•slandered him and denied him his legal rights;

•bribed his doctor to not advise him he had prostrate cancer;

•told the RCMP he had burned his own belongings; and

•entered his motel room in Headingly, Man. to steal some of his documents.

He further alleged the WCB tried to kill him; bribed the president of U-Haul to assault him; bribed the RCMP to cover up crimes of the board; stole his mail; and bribed lawyers, doctors, investigators and others to act against him.

The WCB responded by asking the court to dismiss the action, as it was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the court process. It denied all the charges made by Parker, and in any case claimed immunity from an action such as Parker’s under s. 17(2) of The Workers Compensation Act (of Alberta). This states that no action can be brought against the board for a decision or act of the board made in the honest belief that it was within its jurisdiction to do so.

The motion to dismiss was served on Parker in Quebec, where he’d moved without telling the Manitoba court where his initial action had been filed. Parker responded by sending documents to the court which he called a “motion of dismissal of the defendant notice of motion.” These documents were not proper court documents, and they did not include any affidavit evidence or a proper motion brief, ruled Senior Master F. A. Lee of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba.

Neither Parker nor an agent for Parker appeared at the hearing, and the WCB was given the chance to state its case. It submitted an affidavit countering Parker’s claims, and also a psychiatric report which stated that he suffers from a “delusional disorder with grandiose and persecutory features.”

“What was prominent were the delusional ideas he has about his self-worth, the way he lives his life and his persecution by the board and he holds these with great tenacity”, the report stated.

Senior Master Lee accepted these documents. He ordered Parker to pay $1,000 to the defendant to cover his expenses and court costs. Parker had paid the $150 filing fee to initiate the action, forcing the defendant to file a statement of defense and incur other expenses in having to deal with it.

Any individual may launch a civil action, Lee ruled, but that person must be aware that there are potential cost consequences which follow as a result of initiating a court process which is ultimately unsuccessful.

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!