HAMILTON v ALBERTA, 2014 ABCA 103
FRASER, WATSON and MCDONALD JJA
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Appellant applied for a teaching position with Rockyview School Division No. 41. He was not hired for the position. The Appellant believed his qualifications were equal or superior to other applicants and that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age.
Between 1995 and 2011, the Appellant meandered his way through several legal proceedings. In 2012, the Appellant lodged another pair of proceedings, one being a Statement of Claim and the other being an Originating Notice against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta. The Crown applied by Notice of Motion to have the proceedings struck and dismissed pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court. Jones J. struck the pleadings in their entirety because they disclosed no reasonable claim, the claim was frivolous, irrelevant, and improper and, under the circumstances, constituted an abuse of process.
The Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal held that there was no standard of review that worked in the Appellant’s favour. There was no error of law in the reasoning of Jones J. on inextricable questions of law, no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of the facts, and no injustice in the procedural background. The Court also held that there was no unreasonableness in his exercise of discretion. In conclusion, the Court held that there were no reversible errors in the conclusions of Jones J. and that the new proceedings were plainly an abuse of process under Rule 3.68(2)(c) and (d).View CanLII Details