SCHEUCHNER v NEUFELD, 2021 ABQB 863
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
13.45: Notice to be given to court officers
This Decision addressed the Applicant’s request to file additional materials in an Action terminated pursuant to Rule 3.68 and Civil Practice Note No. 7. Civil Practice Note No. 7 governs Court response to so-called Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (“AVAP”).
In an earlier Decision, Rooke ACJ concluded that the Proceeding satisfied the criteria of an AVAP and ordered that the Applicant “show cause” as to why his Action should be continued, failing which, the Action would be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Applicant failed to respond and the Action was struck. Subsequently, the Applicant filed materials labelled “Writ of Mandamus (EX-PARTE ORDER)”, together with a very lengthy Affidavit. The Applicant also delivered materials directly to Rooke J, explaining his failure to “show cause,” as previously ordered.
The Court concluded that the Applicant’s request could not be honoured, as the Action had been struck, thereby rendering the Court functus, and further, and in the alternative, the new materials continued to satisfy the AVAP criteria. The Court directed that, if the Applicant wished to challenge its earlier decision, he could so by way of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
In conjunction with dismissal of the Applicant’s request, the Court ordered that notice be given to the Court Clerks, pursuant to Rule 13.45, that no further materials should be accepted in relation to the struck Action. The Court further noted that the Order would not require the Applicant’s approval, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).View CanLII Details