The Applicant, Hughes, filed an Originating Application, which was brought to Nielsen A.C.J.’s attention for review as a possible vexatious proceeding, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”). Nielsen A.C.J. explained that CPN7 is a document-based review pursuant to Rule 3.68, which was recently introduced to manage apparently vexatious, abusive, or unmeritorious litigation in a cost-effective, proportionate, and timely way. CPN7 employs “restricted forms of evidence” and has a narrow focus. It should only be used in the “clearer cases of abuse”, and where the pleading’s defects are apparent on its face.

Nielsen A.C.J. reviewed Hughes’ Application, and determined that it was suitable for review under CPN7. His Lordship came to this conclusion because the Application contained bald allegations of abuse, perjury, and other misconduct but did not appear to “provide a basis for the Respondents and Court to respond”; and because it sought “disproportionate or impossible remedies” without providing a basis for them. As such, Nielsen A.C.J. stayed the Action and required Hughes to file written submissions pursuant to paragraph 3(b) of CPN7. 

Finally, His Lordship noted that Hughes was already subject to a Final Order Restricting Access to Private Information (the “Order”), which imposed gatekeeping procedures respecting private information. Given the Order, it appeared that Hughes’ litigation was abusive, so Nielsen A.C.J. imposed interim Court access restrictions on Hughes, and held that Hughes’ approval of the Order was not required pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).