The Plaintiff had previously filed four Statements of Claim against four different Defendants which Associate Chief Justice Nielsen had ruled to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”), and had ordered, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No.  7, that the Applicant had to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

Following this Order, the Plaintiff obtained counsel and submitted written arguments, arguing the claims had been filed to preserve the Plaintiff’s legal rights and remedies. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen reviewed the written submissions provided by the Plaintiff to the Court and determined that the claims should not be struck as vexatious pursuant Rule 3.68, but rather that the Applicant be allowed to amend the Statements of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.62.

Associate Chief Justice Nielsen also made an Order to consolidate the four claims pursuant to Rule 3.72, as each claim arose from the same employment situation.