3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders

Case Summary

A Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff was brought to the attention of the Court engaging Civil Practice Note No. 7 and a review of the Action as a possible Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”).

In reviewing the Statement of Claim, Associate Chief Justice Nielsen noted: (1) bald or declaratory allegations which did not appear to provide a basis for a meaningful response; (2) requests for disproportionate remedies; and (3) requests for impossible remedies, namely: “A formal apology from the Edmonton Public School Board” and “Formal documentation ensuring the Edmonton Public School Board take full responsibility for the Plaintiff’s children’s formal education.”

His Lordship concluded that the Statement of Claim exhibited indicia of an AVAP, and therefore should be subject to the show cause, document-based review contemplated in Civil Practice Note No. 7. As such, the Action was stayed pending a final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68, which would follow a brief window of opportunity for the Plaintiff to respond to the deficiencies identified by the Court. His Lordship concluded by noting that the Court would prepare and serve the interim Order staying the Action and that the Plaintiff’s approval of that Order was not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

View CanLII Details