This decision arose from a larger set of Actions case managed by Justice Marion. As Case Management Justice, Marion J. implemented a detailed Fiat request process to manage requests for Court relief. In that process, the parties required permission before they could bring an Application in the case managed Actions (“Fiat Requests”).

During a Fiat Request by one of the parties, Justice Marion addressed the authority under the Rules for considering Fiat Requests in the case managed Actions. The purpose of the Fiat Request process was to pre-screen proposed Applications, in an attempt to ensure the case managed Actions could be “fairly and justly resolved in or by a Court process in a timely and cost-effective way”, as contemplated by Rule 1.2. Justice Marion held that the Court’s jurisdiction to implement this form of process is found in its inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, its inherent jurisdiction to manage Actions, and the Rules generally. The Court may decide not to exercise its discretion to grant a Fiat Request for many reasons, and based on a number of factors, including, among others, if the proposed Application has one or more of these characteristics:

1. It is contrary to law: Rule 1.4(2)(b)(i);
2. It seeks relief that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant: Rule 3.68(2)(a);
3. It is or constitutes an abuse of process: Rules 1.4(2)(b)(ii), 3.68(2)(d);
4. It is frivolous, irrelevant or improper (or is for an improper purpose): Rules 1.4(2)(b)(iii) and 3.68(2)(c);
5. It is in contravention or non-compliance with a Rules, Court Order or direction: Rule 1.5(1)(b);
6. It discloses no reasonable basis for a remedy or relief: Rule 3.68(2)(b); or
7. It seeks to add claims that do not disclose a reasonable claim, or a “true, new, viable cause of action”: Rule 3.68(2)(b).