This Decision concerned the interference of a party unrelated to the litigation (the “Uninvolved Third Party”) in a foreclosure action. The Uninvolved Third Party had positioned himself as a "minister" and "amicus curiae" without any legal basis or standing in the case; he had attempted to argue on behalf of one of the Defendants.

The Court found the Uninvolved Third Party’s actions to be the unauthorized practice of law, breaching the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8. The Court dismissed the arguments advanced by the Uninvolved Third Party as legally baseless and disruptive.

Further, given the Uninvolved Third Party’s history of abusive litigation practices, the Court concluded that he should be prohibited from participating in King’s Bench proceedings unless he is a named party, preventing him from acting as an agent, amicus curiae, or McKenzie Friend under Rules 2.22 and 2.23. In addition, the Court ordered that he be prohibited from entering Alberta Courthouses without authorization and must adhere to specific communication restrictions with the Court.

Pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c), the Court dispensed with the approval of the Order by the Uninvolved Third Party and the Defendant he claimed to represent.