1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies

Case Summary

In two complex Actions jointly managed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, the self-represented Defendant, McMullen, brought six Applications for leave seeking to challenge the conduct of various law firms and the Court. Associate Chief Justice Rooke decided each Application for leave separately.

In one Application for leave, the Defendant sought disqualification of a law firm acting for parties adverse in interest to him, whether with respect to the Actions generally or with respect to a related disqualification Application brought against another law firm. The Court was not satisfied that the Defendant had offered any evidence or legal proposition to establish a conflict of interest or abuse of process, and noting no reasonable likelihood of success, denied leave. Moreover, Associate Chief Justice Rooke identified the Defendant’s pursuit of disqualification as a colourable attempt to induce a conflict of interest on which to ground the disqualification, constituting an abuse of process contrary to Rules 3.68(2) and 1.2.

View CanLII Details