3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award

Case Summary

A previous Application for Judicial Review had been reviewed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke as being an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). Pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7 (“CPN7”), Associate Chief Justice Rooke had ordered that the Applicant 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 Plaintiff asked for an extension which Associate Chief Justice Rooke granted. The deadline had passed and nothing had been received. As such, in this Application, Associate Chief Justice Rooke determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68.

Associate Chief Justice Rooke noted that when an Action is terminated through the CPN7 process, the Court usually awards Costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court. His Lordship noted that, per Rule 10.31, the Court has the broad discretion to determine an appropriate Cost Award, and that, per Rule 10.33, the Court may take into consideration a litigant’s conduct if it caused unnecessary litigation or delay, if a litigant engaged in improper litigation, or if a litigant otherwise engaged in misconduct. Associate Chief Justice Rooke determined that the Plaintiff’s Application was an attempted to derail the disciplinary proceedings that were underway between she and the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff advanced claims that were absurd. His Lordship determined that, on a balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff knew that her Application had no valid legal basis and ordered that the Plaintiff be required to pay elevated litigation costs of $5,000. Associate Chief Justice Rooke also ruled that the Applicant’s approval of the Order granted was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

View CanLII Details