RANA v RANA, 2022 ABCA 306
9.15: Setting aside, varying and discharging judgments and orders
14.5: Appeals only with permission
The Applicant sought permission to Appeal an Order varying the earlier Order in which he was declared a vexatious litigant, following an Application brought by the Respondent. Earlier in the litigation, the Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant, and therefore the Applicant required the Court’s permission to Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(j).
Veldhuis J.A. identified the test for permission to Appeal as outlined in the jurisprudence and provided relevant factual background of the litigation.
While canvassing the litigation background, Veldhuis J.A. noted that the Respondent had failed to comply with section 23.1 of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, which would have required the Respondent to provide notice to the Minister of the vexatious litigant Application. Counsel for the Minister, in response to the Respondent’s ultimately giving notice of the Application, advised that it would not be taking any position on the matter. Following this, the Respondent had successfully applied to vary the vexatious litigant Order pursuant to Rule 9.15.
Veldhuis J.A. ultimately found that this procedural deficiency had no significant impact on the litigation, or the finding that the Applicant was a vexatious litigant.
Ultimately, Veldhuis J.A. dismissed the Application for permission to Appeal as the Applicant had failed to show that there was important question of law or precedent, there was a reasonable chance of success on Appeal, and the delay would not unduly hinder the progress of the Action or cause undue prejudice.View CanLII Details