The law firm of Loberg Ector LLP, who was also named as a Defendant, submitted a letter to the Court requesting review under Civil Practice Note 7 (“CPN7”) of Statements of Claim filed by the Plaintiff in numerous Court Actions. The other named Defendants included, among others, employees and/or partners of that law firm.

CPN7 sets out summary procedures to be followed, using Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, for a “claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.”

The Court found that each of the Plaintiff’s claims appeared to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. In particular, the Statements of Claim appeared to make baseless claims that represented a collateral attack on the Defendants, stemming from the Court’s determination under a prior Action and the ongoing enforcement under that Action.

The Court also noted that it had wide discretion under its inherent jurisdiction to grant procedural orders under Rules 1.4 and 4.14. Such orders may impose terms, time limits, or conditions on proceedings. These are limited in scope and are often referred to as “Limited Civil Restraint Orders”.

The Court emphasized the importance of balancing the need to protect the judicial system from abuse with the Plaintiff's right to access the courts. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file written submissions addressing the allegations of vexatious litigation and explaining why his claims were not frivolous or duplicative.