The Applicant sought permission to appeal a Chambers Justice’s Decision declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. The Applicant raised several procedural concerns with the Respondent’s materials and asked for sanctions against the Respondent, including concerns with formatting requirements and that the materials were not filed in time. The Justice was not convinced that any irregularities, if they existed, prejudiced the Applicant, and refused to sanction the Respondent.

Under Rule 14.5, the general test for permission to Appeal as set out in Thompson v Procrane Inc (Sterling Crane), 2016 ABCA 71, considers whether (a) there is an important question of law or precedent; (b) there is a reasonable chance of success on Appeal; and (c) the delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue prejudice. When an Applicant seeks to appeal a vexatious litigant Order, the most important consideration is whether the proposed Appeal raises a serious issue of general importance with a reasonable chance of success.

The Applicant asserted that the Application to have him declared a vexatious litigant was improperly motivated and intended to interfere with an existing Appeal. The Court found that nothing in the evidence supported the Applicant’s assertion. The Court further rejected the Applicant’s arguments regarding the lower Court’s failure to abide by the rules of natural justice.

In response to the Applicant’s claim that the Respondent’s materials were not served on time, the Chambers Justice found that the materials were served on time, but offered the Applicant the opportunity to proceed by way of written submissions if he was not prepared to proceed with oral arguments. The Court of Appeal found that the Chamber Justice’s discretion to proceed on the basis of written submissions alone was within the Justice’s discretion under Rule 6.9(1)(c).

The Court dismissed the Applicant’s Application for permission to Appeal.