The Applicant applied to set aside a Consent Judgment.

The Applicant argued that the Consent Judgment did not comply with Rule 3.1 and therefore did not constitute a proceeding before the Court under section 8 of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2. Rule 3.1 requires a proceeding to be brought and carried out in accordance with the Rules. Rule 3.2 requires an Action to be commenced by filing a Statement of Claim, Originating Application, or a Notice of Appeal. The Consent Judgment did not comply with Rule 3.2 as it was the first document submitted to the Court as an originating document. The Applicant also argued that the Court could set aside the Consent Judgment under Rule 1.4(2)(b) as the process followed was contrary to law.

The Court dismissed the Application. The Court noted that the Applications Judge who endorsed the Consent Judgment would have been aware that Rule 3.2 was not followed as the Court endorsed the Consent Judgment and assigned it a new Court File Number. Malik J. determined that the Court did not have any further jurisdiction as the Applicant did not apply to set aside the Consent Judgment under Rule 1.5 or formally appeal it.