The Applicant, against whom Court access restrictions had previously been imposed, applied for permission to continue three Actions having recently retained counsel.

The Court set out the test for leave to continue litigation stayed due to Court access restrictions. The Applicant must: (1) establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and (2) depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen further noted that pursuant to Rule 14.5(4), there is no Appeal to the Court of Appeal of a Decision to deny leave to continue litigation.

The Court held that by virtue of the Affidavit evidence filed and the exhibits thereto, the Applicant had satisfied the low threshold to establish that reasonable grounds existed for the three Actions. The Court therefore granted permission, but did so expressly without limitation to the Respondents’ ability to challenge the merits of the Applicant’s claims in reliance on Rules 3.68, 7.2, or 7.3.

The Court also observed that the Applicant had a highly problematic history in dealing with the Court as a self-represented litigant. Therefore, in waiving the previously imposed requirement for the Applicant to seek leave for any new filing, the Court restricted that waiver only to filings by Counsel on the Applicant’s behalf.

The Court also ordered that, if the Applicant were to become self-represented in any of the three continued Actions in the future, then: (1) that Action would be stayed, and the Application would need to apply again for leave to continue that Action; (2) the Applicant would have 60 days to pay $5,000 in Security for Costs to the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to Rules 4.22 and 4.23; and (3) if the Security for Costs is not paid, the Defendants in that Action may apply to strike out the Action.