The Plaintiff had previously filed two Statements of Claim which the Defendants referred to review under Civil Practice Note No 7 (“CPN7”) as constituting Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings (“AVAPs”). Associate Chief Justice Nielsen conducted the review, concluding that the Statements of Claim were AVAPs, and ordered that the Plaintiff had 14 days to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” why the AVAPs should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

The Plaintiff provided written submissions with respect to each of the Statements of Claim. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen reviewed the written submissions and determined that the Statements of Claim should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68. The Court also dispensed with the Plaintiff’s approval of the Order granted pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).