CHISAN v FIELDING, 2017 ABQB 233
1.5: Rule contravention, non-compliance and irregularities
2.24: Lawyer of record
6.3: Applications generally
13.29: Certified copies of original records
13.47: Proof of official court reporter’s signature not required
13.6: Pleadings: general requirements
The Defendant applied for a declaration that the Plaintiff was a vexatious litigant. The Plaintiff had commenced several Actions dating back to 1992, all of which involved the City of Calgary or its representatives and agents, and generally involved allegations about the seizure of the Plantiff’s lands. The Plaintiff had appealed an Order to strike his claim, and, in response, the Defendants had filed the Application for a declaration that the Plaintiff was a vexatious litigant. The Chambers Judge who adjourned the two Applications to a Special Application noted that it might be irregular to bring a motion within a struck Action, but Eamon J. stated that Rule 6.3(1) permitted such an Application. Justice Eamon further noted that, in the event this was an irregularity, time had long since passed to raise an objection pursuant to Rule 1.5(3).
The Plaintiff complained that counsel for the City should not be able to represent the City since counsel was a “corporate lawyer”. Eamon J. observed that the lawyer in question had become lawyer of record under Rule 2.24 by having filed a record in the Action. As the Plaintiff had not articulated an intelligible basis to question the lawyer’s authority, the Court declined to delve further.
The Defendants tendered several records in support of their Application to declare the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The Court noted that some of the records failed to comply with Rule 13.29(2) in that they were not endorsed by the Court Clerk as true copies. Eamon J. also noted that various transcripts submitted by the Applicant were not signed by the Court Reporter, but that this was cured by Rule 13.49. Finally, Justice Eamon noted that in the absence of objection from the Plaintiff, these materials were admissible notwithstanding their technical noncompliance.
Justice Eamon reviewed the Plaintiff’s litigation history and noted that his pleadings often failed to comply with Rule 13.6(2) in that the Plaintiff did not discharge his burden to properly plead his case such that, if the allegations were proven, liability would result. Further, the Plaintiff often made bald allegations of bad faith without particulars in contravention of Rule 13.6(3). On that basis, among other reasons, His Lordship granted the Defendant’s Application and held that the Plaintiff was a vexatious litigant.View CanLII Details