The Applicant filed an Originating Application against a multitude of parties, alleging, inter alia, that he had suffered a workplace injury and had been constructively dismissed. The Originating Application was struck by an Applications Judge. The Court of King’s Bench dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and declared him a vexatious litigant. The Applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeal, and an Appeal conference before a single Appeal Judge was convened. At the Appeal conference, the parties agreed to enter into a Consent Judgment which set aside the declaration that the Applicant was a vexatious litigant and dismissed the Appeal.

The Applicant applied pursuant to Rule 14.38(2)(c) to reargue or reopen the Appeal, arguing that after the Consent Judgment was entered into, he was advised that he could not recommence the Action by way of Statement of Claim as the Action would be time barred pursuant to the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12. As such, the Applicant sought to set aside the Consent Judgment.

The Court found that the Applicant had voluntarily entered into the Consent Judgment after full discussion and after having been encouraged to obtain legal advice, which he refused to do. The Applicant’s concern that he may not now recommence the entire process was not an exceptional circumstance that warranted reopening or rearguing the Appeal. Nor was the Court misled about the record or the nature of the issues at the Appeal conference. As such, the Application was dismissed, and Rule 9.4(2)(c) was invoked.