The Applicant, Mr. Lemay, filed two Applications against his landlord, Zen Residential Ltd. (“Zen”), claiming overpaid rent and interest (“Lemay Rent Application”) and penalty under the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (“Lemay RTA Application”). Documents for both Applications were filed by Mr. Botar, an abusive litigant prohibited from personally appearing at the Edmonton Court of King’s Bench Clerks’ counters. Mr. Botar also stated in both Applications that he was Mr. Lemay’s “legal representative” and “MacKenzie Friend”.

Unaware of the Lemay RTA Application, Acting Chief Justice Nielsen issued an Order under the Lemay Rent Application. The Order stated, among other things: (1) Mr. Botar was guilty of Contempt of Court for filing documents; (2) Mr. Botar had also engaged in the unauthorized and illegal practice of law; (3) There was no valid Lemay Rent Application proceeding before the Court as the documents filed by Mr. Botar were done so illegally. Mr. Lemay was instructed to submit a replacement Statement of Claim to Acting Chief Justice Nielsen. The Lemay Rent Application was terminated because Mr. Lemay did not submit a replacement Statement of Claim in time.

In the Lemay RTA Application, Mr. Lemay appeared before Applications Judge Schlosser and obtained an Order that found Zen in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act. Zen did not attend that hearing. Subsequently, when Mr. Lemay applied to the Court for an Order requiring Zen to pay a penalty, Zen cross-applied to set aside the Order of Applications Judge Schlosser pursuant to Rule 9.15 on the basis that the Application was illegally filed.

Justice Leonard noted that Mr. Botar’s activities in both the Lemay Rent Application and the Lemay RTA Application were functionally and substantively identical. Relying on the principles of “horizontal stare decisis” and “judicial comity” from R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, Justice Leonard stated that she was bound by the conclusions of Acting Chief Justice Nielsen. On that basis, Justice Leonard concluded that Lemay RTA Application was never properly before the Court.

In the result, Justice Leonard set aside the Order of Applications Judge Schlosser and stayed the Lemay RTA Application. Furthermore, if Mr. Lemay failed to submit replacement originating filings by March 1, 2024, the matter would be struck out. Mr. Lemay’s approval of the Order was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).