Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Mayhew's $30,218,122.54 claim against the Workers Compensation Board was struck in its entirety for failing to plead material facts supporting any recognized cause of action.

• Alberta's Workers' Compensation Act establishes a closed statutory regime granting the WCB exclusive jurisdiction, barring private tort suits over claims administration and compensation decisions.

• Virtually every allegation in the Amended Amended Statement of Claim consisted of bare, conclusory assertions devoid of specific dates, names, actions, or other factual particulars required to sustain a pleading.

• The misfeasance in public office claim — the only potential exception to the statutory bar — was too vague and resembled a generalized conspiracy theory, lacking the deliberate-unlawful-act specifics the tort demands.

• Several paragraphs were deemed scandalous for implying WCB involvement in criminal acts such as burglaries and hacking through innuendo rather than pleaded facts.

• Despite being afforded 18 months and multiple adjournments to cure deficiencies, the plaintiff's final pleading remained fundamentally unviable, and no further leave to amend was granted.

The workplace injury and the WCB claim

In November 2018, Sherry Mayhew injured her wrist lifting a heavy dog while working at a veterinary clinic. Her injury fell under the coverage of the Workers' Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15, entitling her to compensation and treatment covered by the Workers Compensation Board, while precluding her from privately suing either her employer or the WCB in respect of it. In a manner that remains unclear, Ms. Mayhew's treatment and claim went off the rails. She honestly believes that the WCB has negligently and/or maliciously denied and withheld appropriate treatment, failed to pay her owed compensation, prevented her pursuit of internal administrative remedies, told medical professionals in both Alberta and British Columbia not to treat her, threatened those medical professionals, altered treatment plans, made false and defamatory statements about her mental state, deleted key evidence, and was in some way complicit with multiple break-ins to her home and vehicle, repeated tampering with her email accounts and internet services, and installation of malware on her devices.

The lawsuit and the statement of claim

Ms. Mayhew, a self-represented litigant assisted by Mackenzie Friends, filed a lawsuit in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta seeking $30,218,122.54. Her Amended Amended Statement of Claim alleged negligence, abuse of public office, misfeasance in public office, battery, "unauthorized medical interference", defamation, intimidation and harassment, fraud, conversion, "unlawful withholding of benefits", conspiracy, "conspiracy to commit fraud on medical records", negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, intrusion upon seclusion, and "privacy violations". The WCB, represented by counsel Megan Schaub, brought an application under Rule 3.68 of Alberta's Rules of Court to strike the original Amended Statement of Claim for failure to disclose a cause of action. The matter first came before Justice N.E. Devlin in Civil Chambers on October 2, 2024, and the Court informally case managed it since then, with Ms. Mayhew appearing six times before Justice Devlin on the matter, and three other times in Chambers before other Justices on related motions. The parties finally argued the application on its merits on the basis of Ms. Mayhew's final attempt at a proper pleading, filed October 23, 2025.

The statutory bar and the WCB's exclusive jurisdiction

A central issue was the comprehensive statutory regime established by the Workers' Compensation Act. The Act grants the WCB exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear, and determine all matters arising under the Act, and the Board's decisions are final and conclusive and not open to question or review in any court. The statutory appeal process runs from the Board's adjudicators to the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body, then to the Appeals Commission, and finally to the Court of King's Bench on a question of law or jurisdiction. Justice Devlin adopted the comprehensive outline of the limits to private law claims found in Gay v Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board), 2023 ABCA 351 at paragraphs 5–9. With the exception of misfeasance in public office, none of the causes of action advanced in the SOC were permitted as a matter of law, because the Act provides a complete, closed system of administration, adjudication, and appeal. The court found that any paragraphs pleading that the WCB did not handle Ms. Mayhew's claim properly simply did not survive the bar on suing the WCB for dissatisfactory claims outcomes. Much of the SOC, in substance, was a complaint that Ms. Mayhew's WCB compensation was mishandled throughout, which is not actionable in tort, irrespective of whether it relates to medical or monetary decisions and outcomes.

Deficiencies in the pleadings

Justice Devlin found that virtually the entire SOC was devoid of facts that could establish claims. Under Alberta law, a pleading must succinctly state the material facts making out a cause of action, and the more serious the allegations, the more specific the facts outlining the wrongdoing have to be. For instance, in Part II of the SOC concerning "medical interference," the claim alleged that WCB agents altered or interfered with treatment plans, but no facts such as dates, times, doctors, treatments, or the means of interference were mentioned. In Part III concerning alleged defamation, no publication or communication was ever specifically identified. Part IV, alleging intimidation and harassment, was similarly comprised of bald assertions that could not found a fair or functional claim. Parts VI and VII, alleging fraud and financial misconduct, also suffered this defect; although certain specific transactions were later identified, those were caught by the statutory bar against suits for financial compensation. In Part VIII, the SOC alleged "conspiracy to commit fraud on medical records," which the court noted is not an existing cause of action. Despite filing hundreds of pages of affidavits while the motion to strike was pending, Ms. Mayhew did not plead the material facts necessary to make a viable claim, and the court noted that under subrule 3.68(3), evidence cannot be used to bolster or "patch up" a claim that is deficient on its face.

The misfeasance in public office claim

The one cause of action that could potentially survive the statutory bar was misfeasance in public office, a tort centred on deliberate unlawful acts, knowingly perpetrated by a public official outside of their legitimate powers, done either with the purpose of harming the claimant, or with the knowledge that they would, as outlined in Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 at paragraphs 22–25. Justice Devlin found that while Ms. Mayhew invoked this tort, her pleading suffered from the same fatal vagueness as the rest of the claim. The allegations were markedly similar to those in Gay, where the Court of Appeal held that merely pleading a known cause of action will not save a pleading, and that bald allegations of misfeasance are not sufficient. The court acknowledged that when alleging a malicious conspiracy by a government bureaucracy, a member of the public will not often be able to plead chapter and verse of that wrongdoing, as many supporting facts would be within the government's knowledge and control. That said, more was required than what was found in Ms. Mayhew's SOC. The misfeasance claim was found to be too vague, too conclusory, too lacking in specifics, and too resemblant of a generalized conspiracy theory to proceed as a viable claim. The court characterized it as improper, unanswerable, and non-litigable.

Scandalous pleadings and claims of interference

The court identified several paragraphs as scandalous because they implied, through innuendo rather than direct factual pleading, that the WCB was involved in criminal acts such as burglaries, car vandalism, and computer hacking linked temporally or otherwise to Ms. Mayhew's WCB dispute. None of these claims expressly stated that the WCB or its agents committed these alleged crimes, but levied the innuendo that they did. A pleading is scandalous where it alleges criminal, immoral, or disreputable conduct without pleading material facts capable of supporting the allegation, and serves to impute misconduct rather than advance a legally cognizable claim. Similarly, Ms. Mayhew's allegations that the WCB had interfered in her solicitor-client relationships were investigated by the court during the extended adjournment period. The record, which includes a Certificate from the WCB pursuant to section 149 of the Act, clearly established that former WCB counsel, Ms. Stornton, acted properly, communicated with Ms. Mayhew's putative counsel, Mr. Johal, in a professional and appropriate manner, and granted him indulgences of time. The record equally reflected that Mr. Johal made it clear to Ms. Mayhew that he was unable to represent her, and it appears that the lawyer had never accepted the retainer and declined to act. Nothing in the materials supported the allegation that this was due to improper conduct by WCB counsel. The court found that Ms. Mayhew's claims about interference with legal representation were doomed to fail, scandalous and vexatious, and should be struck.

The ruling and overall outcome

The WCB's application to strike was filed in relation to Ms. Mayhew's Amended Statement of Claim in July 2024. The Court granted repeated adjournments over six appearances spanning 18 months to allow her to address the pleading's fundamental deficiencies. The resulting SOC was little better than its predecessors, having simply amplified and added to existing vague, conclusory assertions coupled to statute-barred claims of negligence and non-payment. Justice Devlin concluded that the SOC did not commence a piece of litigation that could be prosecuted even through next steps, much less to trial, and that any further opportunity to amend was unlikely to remedy the deficiencies. The SOC was struck in its entirety, without further leave to amend, in favour of the WCB as the successful applicant. No specific monetary award was ordered; under what the court described as the "sad circumstances" of this case, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs. Ms. Mayhew's $30,218,122.54 claim was thereby entirely dismissed. The court cautioned Ms. Mayhew that such an indulgence should not be expected in the future if further unviable litigation is pursued.