3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs

Case Summary

Upon receipt of the Applicant’s documents entitled “Originating Application” (the “Application”) counsel for the Respondents wrote to the Court to indicate that the Application may be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”), as defined under Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”) and may be struck under Rule 3.68. Justice Thomas agreed, noting that the Application: (1) was irregular in that it alleged no facts, but instead referenced an Affidavit as providing the basis for the litigation; (2) did not appear to provide an adequate basis for the Court and Respondents to make a meaningful response; and (3) sought impossible remedies and was found to have a political rather than personal litigation purpose.

Accordingly, pursuant to CPN7, Justice Thomas stayed the Application until after review of the Applicant’s written submissions as to why the Application should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

After reviewing the written submissions, Thomas J. concluded that the Application was an abusive proceeding and therefore should be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. Thomas J. found that since the CPN7 process was initiated by the Respondents, Rule 10.29 applied, and the Applicant was presumptively liable to pay Costs. His Lordship also noted that the Applicant had obtained a fee waiver to initiate the proceeding and therefore did not incur any expense to commence the Application. Justice Thomas found that misuse of the fee waiver procedure can open Alberta Courts up to abusive litigation. Accordingly, Justice Thomas ordered a lump-sum Cost award of $500.00 to each group of Respondents. Finally, His Lordship ordered that counsel for the Alberta Government Respondents would prepare an Order for the steps indicated in His Lordship’s Decision and that pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c) the Applicant’s approval of that Order was not required.

View CanLII Details