CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE v HAYDEN, 2021 ABQB 985
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
10.49: Penalty for contravening rules
14.5: Appeals only with permission
The Defendant is a vexatious litigant who can file documents only with the Court’s permission. The Defendant sought leave from Associate Chief Justice Rooke to appeal a Decision of Master Mason.
His Lordship denied leave because (1) the Applicant’s proposed filings were inadequate; (2) she failed to provide necessary materials, and (3) she was attempting to relitigate a previously decided issue.
Despite not granting leave, Rooke ACJ noted that his Lordship would consider another leave Application if the Defendant corrected the issues in the proposed motion and provided the Court with the proper materials.
Rooke ACJ informed the Defendant that, pursuant to Rule 14.5(4), there is no appeal of His Lordship‘s decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. However, the Defendant could seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the Court’s decision.
Lastly, Rooke ACJ relied on Rule 10.49(1) to penalize the Defendant $2,500 for persisting with abusive litigation and invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) to dispense with the Defendant’s approval of the Order.View CanLII Details