BOURQUE v TENSFELDT

The Plaintiff, Stephanie Bourque was subject to Court access restrictions including an Order requiring Bourque to obtain permission from Michalyshyn J. to bring any further proceedings or to take any further steps against parties related to the litigation. Nevertheless, Bourque wrote a letter to Chief Justice Moreau demanding various forms of relief including the appointment of a new “impartial” Case Management Judge.

Michalyshyn J. concluded that Bourque’s correspondence was a Leave Application directed to the wrong Justice. After reviewing the law relating to the recusal of Judges in Alberta, Michalyshyn J. refused Bourque’s Application on the basis that a person subject to Court access restrictions must rebut the presumption that they are litigating in an abusive and illegitimate manner by filing a valid Leave Application. Justice Michalyshyn concluded that this was not done in this case.

Michalyshyn J. confirmed that the standard practice of the Court was that a rejection of a Leave Application is final and may not be repeated. Rule 14.5(4) prohibits an appeal from an Order which denies a vexatious litigant permission to institute new proceedings. Michalyshyn J. cautioned that continued non-compliant Leave Applications would risk more stringent Court access restrictions including the requirement to pay a fine pursuant to Rule 10.49. The Application was dismissed.