The Defendant referred the Statement of Claim to Rooke ACJ for review as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”). CPN7 is a specialized mechanism that allows the Court to strike out claims under Rule 3.68.

Associate Chief Justice Rooke reviewed the claim and noted that, despite being a close call, the claim was not suitable for CPN7. The allegations in the claim were not bald and unsubstantiated, and the claims, while unexpected, did not reach the threshold of “absurd, highly implausible, or hyperbole”.

However, Rooke ACJ determined that the Statement of Claim was nonetheless problematic when viewed in light of the several other lawsuits commenced by the Plaintiff. In pursuit of a claim for alleged conspiracy of stalking and monitoring, the Plaintiff had misused various courts and tribunal processes. Notably, the Plaintiff had to conduct a Rule 4.10 case conference prior to filing further applications naming the Defendant. The Plaintiff had an extended record of unsuccessful litigation where he sought impossible and excessive damage awards and engaged in persistent and repeated appeals. The evidence before Rooke ACJ made it clear that the Plaintiff was an abusive litigant who could not be managed except by prospective litigation gatekeeping.

Associate Justice Rooke noted that the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to manage abusive litigants by issuing “vexatious litigation orders”. Instead, the Court can invite parties to file a Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 [Vexatious Proceedings] application, with notice to the Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, when “faced with a persistent abusive litigant whose litigation misconduct is not suitable for case management”.

Accordingly, Rooke ACJ invited the Defendant to initiate a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application to impose court access restrictions on the Plaintiff and, in the meantime, ordered interim access restrictions until the Judicature Act application was resolved.