The Applicant, Stephen Liu (“Mr. Liu”), brought an Application for the Respondent, Idris Kadiri (“Mr. Kadiri”), to be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 (“Act”). Neither Mr. Liu or Mr. Kadiri were represented by counsel when the Application was first before the Court, and Nielsen J. adjourned the Application because it did not comply with the process set out by the Court of Appeal of Alberta in Jonsson v Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167. At that time, Nielsen J. also made Mr. Kadiri subject to an interim Court access restriction Order that stayed all litigation initiated by Mr. Kadiri before the Application was heard (“Kadiri #1 Decision”).

Following the Kadiri #1 Decision, Mr. Liu retained counsel and served a replacement Application under the Act (“Updated Application”). Mr. Kadiri did not file any materials in response to the Updated Application but did submit materials to suggest that the Court lacked jurisdiction to vary and adapt litigation process as occurred as a result of the Kadiri #1 Decision. The Court rejected Mr. Kadiri’s argument, finding it was contrary to the general litigation management authority set out in Rule 1.4. After canvassing Mr. Kadiri’s litigation conduct, Nielsen J. held that Mr. Kadiri was a vexatious litigant. Mr. Kadiri was prohibited from, inter alia, commencing any Application in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, acting as a self-represented litigant pursuant to Rule 2.22, and assisting other parties before the Court pursuant to Rule 2.23. The Court rejected Mr. Liu’s Application to strike Mr. Kadiri’s Actions pursuant to Rule 3.68(4) as the effect of the Court access restrictions was to stay Mr. Kadiri’s Actions indefinitely. Mr. Liu’s counsel was ordered to prepare and file the Order giving effect to the decision and approval of the Order was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).