LACHANCE v LACHANCE, 2021 ABQB 722
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
This was an Application where three Court proceedings were referred as Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (“AVAPs”) pursuant to Civil Practise Note 7 (“CPN7”). Two referrals were Court of Queen’s Bench lawsuits while one was a Civil Claim filed in Provincial Court. The Court recognised that the CPN7 referrals were accompanied by extensive materials which qualified as an exception to the normally narrow focus of CPN7 review.
The Court rejected CPN7 review for the proceedings because the Court of Queen’s Bench lacked the jurisdiction to conduct CPN7 review for a matter underway in Provincial Court and because the two matters before the Court of Queen’s Bench were collateral attacks proven by the provided documentation.
The Court noted that the rejection of the CPN7 referrals were not findings of fact and/or law as to the merit of the referred Court of Queen’s Bench proceedings and the decisions and conclusions it had made would be irrelevant to any future Applications pursuant to Rules 3.68 or 7.2-7.3 by the Applicants.View CanLII Details