The Applicant sought permission to appeal a decision of a Case Management Judge who refused leave for an application for indemnification and defence costs against the Respondents.

The Parties to the Action were bound by an Access Restriction Order requiring all parties to apply for leave before any application could be heard on its merits. The Applicants relied upon Rule 14.5(1)(j) and Tican v Alamgir, 2023 ABCA 115, which held that an individual can be considered a “vexatious litigant” for the purposes of Rule 14.5(1)(j) if they are subject to a Court Order requiring the Court’s permission to commence or continue proceedings.

Antonio J.A. held that not every access restriction order is a vexatious litigant order, and found that the restriction in question was imposed because of the complexity of the litigation, further noting that the restriction applied equally to all Parties rather than just the Applicant.

The Access Restriction Order on its own was not sufficient for the Court to find that the Applicant had been declared a “vexatious litigant” for the purposes of Rule 14.5(1)(j). The Applicant did not require permission to Appeal the decision of the Case Management Judge.