The Plaintiff is subject to a permanent court access restriction order after being declared a vexatious litigant. Pentelechuk J heard three applications. First, the Defendant applied to extend a previously granted Permanent Court Access Restriction Order issued in the Court of Queen’s Bench against the Plaintiff to the Provincial Court and the Court of Appeal. Second, the Plaintiff sought permission to Appeal the Permanent Court Access Restriction Order. Third, the Plaintiff also sought permission to Appeal an earlier Order striking out his Statement of Claim. Ultimately, Pentelechuk J dismissed all three Applications.

With regards to the Defendant’s Application, Pentelechuk J considered the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, and stated that the absence of litigation in the Provincial Court did not support extending the Permanent Court Access Restriction Order. Further, Pentelechuk J noted that, pursuant to Rule 14.5, the Plaintiff is required to seek permission to Appeal any Decision to the Court of Appeal from the Court of Queen’s Bench. As such, procedurally, there is little difference between the existing restrictions imposed by the Rules of Court and an extension of the Permanent Court Access Restriction Order.

In considering the Plaintiff’s Applications, Pentelechuk J first stated that Rule 14.5 requires permission to Appeal when the Applicant has been declared vexatious. Pentelechuk J then identified the test for permission to Appeal as established in the jurisprudence and the Judicature Act. Ultimately, considering Rule 14.5 and the conduct of the Plaintiff, Pentelechuk J dismissed the Plaintiff’s Applications to Appeal.