BOLAND v SCOTT LAW, 2020 ABQB 697
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Plaintiff had previously filed claims against two law firms and the Law Society of Alberta which Associate Chief Justice Nielsen had ruled to be Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceedings (“AVAPs”). Associate Chief Justice Nielsen had also ordered, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7, that the Applicant had to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” as to why the AVAPs should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen reviewed the written submissions provided by the Applicant to the Court and determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68.
Associate Chief Justice Nielsen made no findings as to whether the Plaintiff was or was not a vexatious litigant, directing the Defendants to file an Application pursuant to the Judicature Act, RSA c J-2, ss. 23-23.1 should they feel the need for such a direction.View CanLII Details