The Plaintiff had previously made an Application which Associate Chief Justice Nielsen had ruled to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”), and had ordered, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7 that the Plaintiff had 14 days to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen found that what the Plaintiff submitted to the Court were not proper written submissions and determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68.

Associate Chief Justice Nielson also ruled that the Plaintiff’s approval of the Order granted was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).