MILLER v ALBERTA (HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION), 2021 ABQB 852
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
The Plaintiff had filed a Statement of Claim that was identified as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). The Plaintiff was ordered to provide, within 14 days, a written submission for a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under Rule 3.68.
The Plaintiff wrote to Nielsen ACJ stating that he decided not to defend the Statement of Claim in the AVAP proceeding and asked that his Statement of Claim be struck without financial penalty.
Due to the Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that there was no basis for the lawsuit, the Statement of Claim was struck out as an abuse of the Court.
The Court noted that when an Action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court. However, good faith and positive litigation conduct should be acknowledged and encouraged. As such, the Court did not make a Costs Order against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was cautioned that this was the second time that the Court had determined that a lawsuit he filed against government actors was an abuse of the Court and its processes and that repeated abusive litigation may result in serious litigation consequences in the future.
The Plaintiff’s approval of the Order was not required pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).View CanLII Details