Upon receipt of a Statement of Claim, Court personnel identified that the Action presented as a possible Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding, engaging Civil Practice Note No. 7.

In reviewing the Statement of Claim, Associate Chief Justice Nielsen noted: i) the issues raised in the Statement of Claim had been the subject of repeated, unsuccessful litigation in other Courts; ii) the Statement of Claim constituted a collateral attack on the decisions of other Courts; iii) by proceeding to commence litigation in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, the Plaintiff was forum shopping; iv) the Statement of Claim requested remedies and relief that were disproportionate, excessive, or impossible, rendering the Action hopeless and an abuse of process; v) the Statement of Claim was inadequately and improperly pleaded, including a failure to plead fraud and misrepresentation with sufficient particularity to meet the requirements of Rule 13.7; and vi) other Courts had declared the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

Given the seriousness of the foregoing concerns, His Lordship stated that the Statement of Claim could be set aside under Rule 3.68 without a full show-cause document-based review. However, as the Plaintiff alleged in the Statement of Claim that he had previously been denied sufficient opportunity to advance his position in writing before other Courts, Associate Chief Justice Nielsen advanced to the second stage of review contemplated in Civil Practice Note No. 7, being an exchange of brief written submissions. In directing summary procedures, His Lordship raised several questions requiring the Plaintiff’s specific response.