Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff’s claim challenged the lawfulness of RCMP detention and alleged psychological and physical mistreatment.

• The notice of civil claim (NOCC) was found to be incomprehensible and failed to identify material facts supporting a legal cause of action.

• Legal principles applied included Rules 3-1, 3-7, and 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules regarding pleadings and grounds for striking claims.

• The NOCC contained a blend of legal argument, evidentiary narrative, and irrelevant content, violating procedural requirements.

• Prior similar claims by the plaintiff were voluntarily discontinued, reflecting a pattern of litigation with insufficient legal grounding.

• The court struck the NOCC without leave to amend, deeming it an abuse of process due to repeated procedural failures.

Factual background and litigation history

Rose Lover-Peace, formerly known as Emotions Universe, brought a civil action against several RCMP officers, unidentified individuals, and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for British Columbia. The plaintiff, who was self-represented, alleged mistreatment during a detention at the Burnaby RCMP detachment. The detention stemmed from an arrest warrant related to a harassment charge. The plaintiff had previously filed two related claims involving similar allegations, both of which were voluntarily discontinued before they proceeded to a decision.

The nature of the claim and pleadings deficiencies

The core issue addressed by the court was the defendant Minister’s application to strike the NOCC. The plaintiff also applied for summary judgment. The court reviewed the NOCC and found it seriously deficient. It lacked a concise statement of material facts, failed to clearly link allegations to legal claims, and contained irrelevant material, legal arguments, and evidence embedded within the factual narrative. These deficiencies violated Rules 3-1 and 3-7, which govern the form and content of pleadings in British Columbia.

The court emphasized that pleadings are foundational to a fair litigation process, as they define the factual and legal issues for all parties. It reiterated that material facts—not evidence or legal conclusions—must be clearly stated to support a claim. The court cited established case law to underscore that pleadings must enable the opposing party and the court to understand the legal and factual basis of the claim without needing to infer or guess.

Court’s analysis and ruling

Justice Sharma found the NOCC to be overwhelmingly flawed, describing it as confusing, incoherent, and non-compliant with the rules of civil procedure. Among the specific issues were the inclusion of procedural history as facts, the use of quoted material from documents and conversations, and a list of case law excerpts in place of an actual legal basis. Furthermore, the plaintiff made inflammatory allegations without specificity, such as claims of "brutal torture" and psychological harm.

Given the repetitive and egregious nature of these procedural deficiencies—and the fact that this was the plaintiff’s third attempt to pursue the same matter—the court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process. The judge noted that the plaintiff had previously been declared a vexatious litigant in a separate matter, which further influenced the court’s reluctance to allow a fourth attempt at reformulating the claim.

Outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of British Columbia struck the plaintiff’s notice of civil claim in its entirety. Importantly, the dismissal was made without leave to amend, meaning the plaintiff was not permitted to refile or attempt to correct the deficiencies. This decision effectively ended the civil claim based on the events surrounding the plaintiff’s detention. The court affirmed the importance of procedural discipline and clarity in pleadings, particularly when previous opportunities to correct defects had been provided and ignored.