JOHNSRUD v FADER, 2021 ABQB 88
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
The Applicant had submitted a package of documents containing 10 purported writs of habeas corpus arising from his incarceration and denial of bail. His Lordship had reviewed these Applications in a previous hearing, resulting in a determination that they constituted Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (“AVAP”) which required review pursuant to Civil Practice Note 7 (“CPN7”).
The Applicant failed to provide written submissions within 2 weeks to show cause why the Applications should not be struck, as required by CPN7. Thus, His Lordship proceeded to strike the Applications pursuant to paragraph 3(c) of CPN7 as being hopeless and abusive. The Court also noted that abuse of habeas corpus is a serious form of litigation misconduct meriting a Costs Award against the Applicant.
The Applicant’s approval of the form and content of the Order was dispensed with as per Rule 9.4(2)(c).View CanLII Details