DMYTERKO v TELUS, 2021 ABQB 220
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
The Defendant, Telus Communications Inc., referred two Statements of Claim, filed by the Plaintiff, to the Court as candidates for Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (“AVAP”). Pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7 (“CPN7”), Rooke A.C.J. ordered that the Plaintiff had 14 days to provide written submissions to the Court to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.
The deadline for the Plaintiff’s written submissions passed without the Plaintiff making submissions. Subsequently, the Court deemed the Statements of Claim hopeless and abusive proceedings, and struck them out pursuant to CPN7 and Rule 3.68.
The Court awarded Costs to the Defendant and ordered that it prepare and serve the Court Order giving effect to the Decision. Pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c), Rooke A.C.J. dispensed with the Plaintiff’s approval of the Order granted.View CanLII Details