The Plaintiff had previously filed a Statement of Claim which Associate Chief Justice Rooke 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. No materials or correspondence were received from the Plaintiff. His Lordship therefore immediately proceeded to evaluate the Plaintiff’s litigation and determined that there was “no question” that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim was filed in breach of the Court access restrictions imposed in a previous proceeding. Associate Chief Justice Rooke further determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68.

With respect to Costs, His Lordship noted that pursuant to Rule 10.31, the Court has broad discretion to determine an appropriate Costs Award, and to take into account litigant conduct that caused unnecessary litigation or delay (Rule 10.33(2)(a-b)), where a litigant engaged in improper litigation (Rule 10.33(2)(d)), breached a Court Order (Rule 10.33(2)(f)), or otherwise engaged in “misconduct” (Rule 10.33(2)(g)). The Court found that the Plaintiff had done all of these things and that the Plaintiff’s “abusive litigation” warranted elevated Costs.

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