3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies

Case Summary

The self-represented Plaintiff initiated two Actions (the “Actions”) which were each identified by the Court Clerks as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“Practice Note 7”). Practice Note 7 sets out a “show cause” procedure where the Court may identify an Action as an AVAP, and issue a written Decision which identifies the apparent defect(s) which may be a basis to strike an Action under Rule 3.68. The party who filed the AVAP then has 14 days within which to file and serve written submissions up to ten pages in length which demonstrates why the AVAP is a legitimate Action which should be permitted to continue.

One Action at issue advanced the bare allegation of an attempted murder apparently conducted by two undercover Edmonton Police Officers, and sought $10,000,000 in general damages (“EPS Action”). The second Action alleged that the Plaintiff was being held and forcibly medicated by Alberta Health Services against his will, and without legal authority (“AHS Action”). The AHS Action attached a “fee schedule” which purported to set out a unilateral contract where the Plaintiff charged fees for any apparent transgressions, ranging from $2,000,000 to $10,000,000 per transgression.

Justice Thomas found that both Actions demonstrated indicia of abusive or vexatious litigation, including that they lacked any alleged facts to support bare allegations, were incoherent, and appeared to be predicated on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as set out in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, including apparent attempts at intimidation through the attaching of the “fee schedule”. Justice Thomas held that the Actions were AVAPs, ordered an immediate Stay in the Actions, and directed that the Actions be subject to the show cause procedure set out by Practice Note 7. 


View CanLII Details