Associate Chief Justice Neilsen received, via email, a Dispute Note with Counterclaim which the Plaintiff claimed was an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). Of significance, this litigation began in the Provincial Court of Alberta. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen concluded that the Civil Practice Note No 7 (“CPN7”), process is not a suitable process to evaluate actions started in the Provincial Court of Alberta and subsequently transferred to the Court of Queen’s Bench due to potentially different standards for valid pleadings. As a result, Associate Chief Justice Neilsen did not invoke the procedure under CPN7.

Associate Chief Justice Neilsen did not make a determination as to whether there was a basis to advance a Rule 3.68 Application in relation to the Dispute Note and Counterclaim but noted that CPN7 is not the appropriate mechanism to respond to that possibility.