BILEY v INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, MOVING PICTURE TECHNICIANS, ARTISTS AND ALLIED CRAFTS OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND CANADA, LOCAL 210, 2019 ABQB 130
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Court’s Complex Litigant Management Counsel drew to Justice Thomas’ attention the Action brought by the Plaintiff, Jonathan Karl Wayne Biley (“Mr. Biley”), naming the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists, and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, Local 210 (the “Union”) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta (“Alberta”), collectively, as the “Defendants” (the “Union Lawsuit”).
The Court noted the Union Lawsuit as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). The Court had designated Justice Thomas to review AVAPs. Justice Thomas found that Mr. Biley’s allegations were extensive and could be summarized as allegations that: 1) the Union had improperly refused to admit him as a member during his informal employment with the Union; and 2) he had been subject to sexual harassment, discrimination, improper criticism, and bullying.
After reviewing the Union Lawsuit Statement of Claim, Thomas J. was able to conclude that it did exhibit indicia that it was a hopeless and an abusive proceeding. This conclusion included the issue that Mr. Biley made many complaints about events under human rights legislation which could not form the basis of a Claim in tort. His Lordship found that the Action should be subject to a “show cause” document-based Rule 3.68 review per Civil Practice Note No. 7 (the “Procedure”).
The Procedure permits a Court to evaluate whether an AVAP is unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious. Justice Thomas noted that the Plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide the Court and serve on the other parties, within 14 days, a written submission that responds to and demonstrates why the AVAP is a legitimate Action and should be permitted to continue.
Further, Thomas J. noted that after receipt of Mr. Biley’s written submission and the Defendants’ written replies, if any, the Court would render its final Decision on whether the Union Lawsuit should be struck out in whole or in part, per Rule 3.68.View CanLII Details