Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• MacIntyre's third party notices against AGC and the Province failed to meet the requirements under R. 3-5(1) for contribution, indemnity, or connected relief in the underlying debt actions.

• Neither AGC nor the Province was a party to any of the contractual loan agreements underlying the RBC and BDC debt claims, severing any basis for third party liability.

• Statutory immunity under s. 92 of the Public Health Act barred all damage claims, including Charter damages, against the Public Health Officer and the Province.

• Claims of negligence against both government defendants failed due to the absence of material facts establishing a private law duty of care owed to specific individuals.

• Allegations of misfeasance in public office were dismissed as bare, generalized assertions lacking identification of any official who deliberately engaged in unlawful conduct.

• Charter breach claims under ss. 6, 7, and 12 were found contrary to established jurisprudence and unsupported by any pleaded material facts.

The underlying debt claims

Keith Robert MacIntyre, a self-represented businessman and the President and sole shareholder of Big Bear Software Inc. and 2221837 Alberta Inc. (operating as the Big Bear Innovation Centre coworking space), found himself the subject of two separate debt recovery actions. The Royal Bank of Canada filed a notice of civil claim on May 2, 2025, seeking repayment of $21,266.06 pursuant to a Business Operating Line of Credit Agreement and $17,544.71 pursuant to a Visa cardholder agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Business Development Bank of Canada filed its own claim on July 7, 2025, seeking judgment in the amount of $318,174.43 representing amounts in default under nine loan agreements, with BDC also claiming against MacIntyre personally pursuant to guarantees he had executed attaching to each of the nine loans.

MacIntyre's counterclaims and defences

In response to both actions, MacIntyre and his companies filed counterclaims alleging that the banks had engaged in predatory lending practices, relied on faulty algorithms for approving credit limits, and that the loans advanced by BDC were unconscionable and constituted loan-cycling whereby BDC was approving loans to Big Bear that they knew were being used to pay down other BDC loans. MacIntyre also raised the defence of economic duress, claiming that government restrictions and lockdowns during the period of March 2020 and beyond had destroyed his ability to service his debts and generate revenue in his coworking space business, which had opened in February of 2020—just weeks before pandemic restrictions took effect.

The third party notices

Central to this decision were MacIntyre's attempts to bring the Attorney General of Canada and the Province of British Columbia into the litigation as third parties. MacIntyre filed third party notices in both the RBC and BDC actions, asserting that the federal and provincial government restrictions and lockdowns from March 2020 and continuing to October 2022 placed him under "extreme economic duress." He claimed that he had expert-level knowledge of pandemic modelling and simulation and had communicated the results of his data analysis, being that pandemic restrictions were ineffective and causing harm, to Dr. Mel Krajden of the BC Centre for Disease Control, and that this information was passed to Dr. Bonnie Henry, the BC Public Health Officer, who acknowledged receipt of the analysis but failed to reconsider her orders as required under Section 43 of the Public Health Act. MacIntyre further alleged that the federal government's pandemic spending programs (CEWS, CERS, CEBA) predictably increased inflation and interest rates, making his debt load unmanageable, and that the Province and AGC exercised their statutory powers for an improper collateral purpose—specifically, by tailoring the timing and severity of public health restrictions to align with political electoral timelines (the 2020 Provincial Election) rather than relying solely on objective epidemiological data, which MacIntyre states constitutes misfeasance in public office.

MacIntyre's independent civil claim

In addition to the third party notices, MacIntyre and Big Bear Software filed a separate notice of civil claim on November 24, 2025, against RBC, AGC, and the Province, repeating substantially the same allegations. This claim sought a declaration that credit agreements between the plaintiffs and RBC are void, unenforceable, or rescinded due to frustration, illegality and unconscionability; general and special damages against all defendants, jointly and severally; punitive and aggravated damages; and damages pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter for alleged breaches of rights to mobility under s. 6, rights to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7, and the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under s. 12.

The applications to strike and set aside

Both AGC and the Province brought applications to strike or set aside all the third party notices and the independent civil claim. They submitted that the third party notices should be set aside pursuant to R. 3-5(8) on the basis that the claims and relief sought do not fall into any of the enumerated categories for third party claims set out in R. 3-5(1), and alternatively that the pleadings should be struck pursuant to R. 9-5(1) as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and constituting an abuse of process.

The court's analysis of the third party notices

Justice Fowler found that neither AGC nor the Province is a party to any of the contractual agreements underlying the claims for repayment of debt. The court determined that MacIntyre had failed to set out sufficient material facts to support any claim for contribution or indemnity under R. 3-5(1)(a), beyond vague assertions that AGC influenced BDC to provide bad loans or that AGC acted unconscionably in restricting MacIntyre's businesses during the Covid pandemic. In respect of the Province, MacIntyre's third party claims were characterized as "simply bare assertions" that his businesses were placed under duress by lockdowns and restrictions, with no facts pleaded to explain how the Province caused or contributed to either RBC's or BDC's losses. The court further found it entirely unclear from the third party notices how the conduct alleged against AGC or the Province is connected to the debt claims of RBC or BDC, noting that the third party claims "massively expand the scope of the litigation" to include Charter claims, misfeasance in public office, and far-reaching allegations about the conduct of AGC and the Province in managing the pandemic.

The court's analysis of negligence and duty of care

On MacIntyre's independent claim, Justice Fowler held that there was no contractual relationship between MacIntyre and/or Big Bear and the Province, defeating any contract-based claims such as unconscionability, duress, and frustration. More critically, the court found that the Public Health Officer does not owe a private duty of care to individuals or individual businesses, citing established authority that public law discretionary powers, to be exercised in the general public interest, cannot be converted into private law duties owed to specific individuals. The failure to establish that the Province owed the plaintiffs a duty of care was also found to be fatal to the plaintiffs' claim for economic loss. Against AGC, the court similarly found no material facts pleaded that could establish that AGC owed the plaintiffs a private duty of care.

Statutory immunity, misfeasance, and Charter claims

The court adopted the conclusions of Justice Crerar in Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. British Columbia, 2025 BCSC 2051, in finding that s. 92 of the Public Health Act immunizes the Health Officer from any claim for damages, including Charter damages, where actions are taken in the exercise or intended exercise of a power under the Act. MacIntyre's claims of misfeasance in public office failed because the NOCC makes bare assertions of misfeasance, with the plaintiffs not identifying any federal government employee who they allege engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct that the official knew was unlawful and likely to harm the plaintiff. The Charter claims were found to be contrary to established jurisprudence and bound to fail: s. 7 of the Charter does not protect the right to engage in economic activity free from government regulation; PHO orders that imposed consequences for failure to be vaccinated do not engage s. 7; and quarantine or other restrictions are not cruel and unusual punishment or treatment and therefore do not violate s. 12 of the Charter.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Fowler ruled in favour of AGC and the Province on all applications. The third party notices filed in both the RBC and BDC actions were set aside pursuant to R. 3-5(8), without leave to amend, on the basis that they do not meet the requirements for valid third party claims under R. 3-5(1). MacIntyre's independent notice of civil claim was struck in its entirety as against AGC and the Province, without leave to amend, pursuant to R. 9-5(1)(a) on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. No specific monetary amount was awarded on these applications, as the ruling addressed only the striking and setting aside of pleadings. The underlying debt claims by RBC and BDC against MacIntyre and his companies were not addressed in this decision.