Says applicant 'appears to be pursuing multiple proceedings in different forums hoping for a positive result’
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has warned that a former employee’s lawsuit against The Good Samaritan Society may be a misuse of the court process.
In Piri v Good Samaritan Society, 2026, associate chief justice D. Blair Nixon reviewed an application by former worker Gabri Piri, also known as Jennifer Laurie, against the Good Samaritan Society and hospitality manager Angela Henke.
Piri filed her application and affidavit on Nov. 4, 2025. On Nov. 21, 2025, counsel for the Good Samaritan Society asked the court to review it under Civil Practice Note 7. That practice note allows the court to quickly screen claims that seem to have no legal basis or that are being used to harass the other side, rather than to resolve a genuine legal dispute.
Wide‑ranging claims and legal arguments
Piri asked the court for “justice”, “compensation”, “back pay”, a mental capacity assessment for a former colleague, and an “unlocking” of her Locked‑In Retirement Account (LIRA). She said her core complaint was that she was “not properly terminated/offboarded” and claimed she did not receive “an acceptance letter for her tendered resignation nor a complete record of employment.” She said this led to “a number of subsequent cumulative grievances.”
To support her case, Piri cited a long list of laws and rules, including 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 the Society’s own internal HR policies.
Although Civil Practice Note 7 normally requires the court to look only at the written application, associate chief justice Nixon said he also reviewed Piri’s affidavit “to glean more information on the factual basis for her allegations.” In that affidavit, Piri said she “feels” she was “[s]abotaged to be forced to quit.”
Piri also referred to a “SST Tribunal ... Where EI was the Commission,” which Nixon said may refer to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada and/or the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. She mentioned that an appeal had been denied and that she had been told to “take it to a Judicial Review in Federal Court instead.”'
'Abuse of process' by applicant
After examining her materials, Nixon concluded the application “appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process” under Alberta’s Civil Practice Note 7 and rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
“Based on my review of matters,” he wrote, “the application may be vexatious in that the applicant appears to be pursuing multiple proceedings in different forums hoping for a positive result, or an abuse of process in that the applicant is not following established appeal processes for her legal or administrative proceedings.”
Previously, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed a Humber Polytechnic employee’s complaint alleging sex discrimination and reprisal after the dispute had already been resolved through a union grievance settlement.
Confusion over employment status and regulatory steps
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta also flagged confusion about Piri’s employment status. She described herself as “OFF ON PAID LEAVE”, while also saying she was “still employed without being paid” and that she had resigned unwillingly. The court has asked her to clarify whether she is or was an employee, on leave, or resigned.
Nixon further directed Piri to explain what complaints, if any, she has filed with regulators such as Alberta Occupational Health and Safety, the Workers Compensation Board, the Alberta Human Rights Commission and Employment Standards. He also asked her to clarify her Charter arguments, noting that “generally only governments have obligations under the Charter, not private individuals or organizations.”
Under the apparent vexatious proceeding process, Piri has 14 days from when she receives the notice to file a written submission of up to 10 pages responding to the Court’s concerns. The respondents then have seven days to file a written reply. The Court will then decide whether to strike out the application in whole or in part under rule 3.68.
The decision also states that counsel for the respondents may prepare and serve an interim order pausing the lawsuit until the Civil Practice Note 7 process is finished, and that the applicant’s approval of that order is not required.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision in Adrain v. Agricom International Inc., 2025 highlights how courts navigate the tricky intersection between employer and employee rights and responsibilities, how both parties must act in good faith and how the courts will interpret a relationship from an objective third-party perspective, according to legal experts.
