The Court of King’s Bench issued court access restrictions against the Respondents, Dr. Bains, Dr. Kaur, and their adult and minor children in a Decision released on January 27, 2025 (the “Court Restriction Decision”). The Respondents sought permission to Appeal the Court Restriction Decision and, in doing so, served 16 individuals with Notices of Appointment for Questioning under Rule 6.8 (the “Notices”).

Justice Wooley confirmed that while Rule 6.8 permits the questioning of witnesses under oath to obtain transcripts for use in Applications, it must be confined to matters that are relevant, material, and not an abuse of process. Justice Wooley noted that a detailed review of the litigation history and the context of the Appeal was necessary to assess the propriety of the Respondents’ Notices.

The underlying litigation arose from three motor vehicle accidents involving Dr. Bains in 2017, leading to prolonged proceedings involving numerous Motions, Appeals, and related lawsuits, most of which were stayed, denied, or struck as abusive proceedings under Rule 3.68. After the claims were dismissed at Trial, Dr. Bains initiated additional Actions and filed criminal complaints against various participants, none of which advanced. The Court Restriction Decision was issued in response to Dr. Bains’ ongoing vexatious conduct.

In seeking permission to Appeal, the Respondents argued that the restrictions were not justified in fact or law. Justice Wooley confirmed that the appropriate assessment involved determining whether the Appeal raises an important question of law or precedent, has a reasonable chance of success, and would not unduly delay the Action or cause prejudice. Justice Wooley affirmed that, under Rules 14.45 and 14.70, the analysis is confined to the record before the Chambers Judge and the broader litigation context, with new evidence permitted only by Application and in rare circumstances.

Justice Wooley found that the Respondents’ proposed Questioning was unrelated to their Application for permission to Appeal. The individuals named lacked information relevant to whether the Appeal raised an important legal question, had a reasonable chance of success, or would cause undue delay or prejudice.

In the result, Justice Wooley held that the Notices were improper and constituted an abuse of process. All Notices were set aside, and the Respondents were prohibited from serving any further Notices of Appointment for Questioning in connection with the Appeal without prior Court approval.