3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders

Case Summary

The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, which alleged that the Defendant had reported the Plaintiff’s credit information inaccurately, was forwarded to Nielsen A.C.J. in accordance with Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”), so that it could be reviewed as a possible Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). His Lordship explained that CPN7 is a process through which the Court intervenes when a matter appears to be clearly without merit “on the face of the pleading”. Only restricted forms of evidence are considered during a CPN7 review.

Nielsen A.C.J. reviewed the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim and noted that it “appear[ed] to be an attempt to implement a pseudolegal scheme to eliminate debt”. As the Statement of Claim contained apparent Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”), it constituted an abuse of the Court’s processes and was therefore suitable for review under CPN7. In accordance with CPN7, His Lordship therefore provided the Plaintiff with 14 days to serve a written submission explaining why the Statement of Claim should not be struck out in whole or in part pursuant to Rule 3.68.

Because the Plaintiff had employed OPCA strategies, His Lordship also imposed interim Court access restrictions on the Plaintiff pursuant to CPN7. The Plaintiff’s approval of the Order imposing those restrictions was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

View CanLII Details