LATHAM (RE), 2018 ABQB 955


2.22: Self-represented litigants
2.23: Assistance before the Court
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
14.5: Appeals only with permission

Case Summary

The Applicant (“Mr. Latham”) was an inmate at the Bowden Institution serving an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender and had a persistent history of initiating unsuccessful habeas corpus Applications (the “HC Applications”). Justice Henderson had previously dismissed one of Mr. Latham’s HC Applications and, at the time, had invited submissions with respect to Costs. After receiving additional submissions, Henderson J. assessed Costs against Mr. Latham, and, in light of his history of misusing the habeas corpus process, had imposed a condition that Mr. Latham could not have access to the fee waiver program in any future HC Applications.

Due to the lengthy 20 year history of HC Applications brought by Mr. Latham, Justice Henderson concluded that it would be appropriate to investigate whether Court access restrictions should be imposed on Mr. Latham, by what is sometimes called a “Vexatious Litigant Order”. After a comprehensive review of the procedural history of Mr. Latham’s HC Applications, Justice Henderson ruled, under the Court’s inherent authority and on His Lordship’s own motion, inter alia, that: (1) Mr. Latham is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any Appeal, Action, Application, or proceeding in the Courts of Alberta; (2) To commence or continue an Appeal, Application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Mr. Latham must apply to a single appellate Judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and if the single appellate Judge grants Mr. Latham leave to commence an Appeal, he may still be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j); and (3) Mr. Latham is prohibited from acting as an agent in the Courts of Alberta under Rules 2.22 and 2.23.

Justice Henderson concluded by determining that the approval of Mr. Latham as to the form and content of the above Order was not required per Rule 9.4(2)(c).

View CanLII Details