Upon receipt of a Statement of Claim, several Defendants jointly requested that the Court engage Civil Practice Note No. 7 and review the Action as a possible Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding.

In reviewing the Statement of Claim, Associate Chief Justice Nielsen noted: i) bald or declaratory allegations which did not appear to provide a basis for a meaningful response; ii) requests for impossible or disproportionate remedies; and iii) requests for remedies on behalf of other third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit, i.e., “busybody” litigation.

His Lordship concluded that the Statement of Claim exhibited indicia of hopeless and abusive proceedings, and therefore should be subject to the show cause, document-based review contemplated in Civil Practice Note No. 7. As such, the Action was stayed pending a final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68, which would follow a brief window of opportunity for the Plaintiff to respond to the deficiencies identified by the Court.