MARTINEZ v CHAFFIN, 2019 ABQB 349
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
The Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim alleging that he had been harmed by incorrect information which was spread through a police conspiracy. Several of the Defendants brought an Application requesting that the Plaintiff be subject to Court access restrictions as a vexatious litigant.
Justice Marriott summarized the details of the Action, and also reviewed the Plaintiff’s other related litigation in Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, and at the Federal Court. Her Ladyship evaluated the need for Court access restrictions pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and found various indicia of abusive litigation: collateral attacks and forum shopping; hopeless proceedings; escalating proceedings; bringing proceedings for improper purposes; scandalous language in pleadings or before the Court; unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy; and exhibiting characteristics of querulous paranoia. Justice Marriott concluded that global Court access restrictions were appropriate, and ordered various restrictions as requested by the Applicants.
Justice Marriott also invoked Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”), initiating a multi-step process for evaluating whether the Statement of Claim should be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. Her Ladyship explained that CPN7 permits a document-only “show cause” mechanism through which a Court filing may be reviewed to determine whether it is either unmeritorious and has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious. Justice Marriott recited the procedural steps laid out in CPN7, starting with the Plaintiff’s onus to provide written submissions defending why the Statement of Claim should not be struck.View CanLII Details