SANCE CASTRO v LEGAL AID SOCIETY, 2026 ABKB 588

The individual Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim against the Legal Aid Society of Alberta and Gianpaolo Panusa KC (the “Defendants”), alleging that the denial of access to the Plaintiff’s preferred legal counsel through Legal Aid of Alberta (“LAA”) interfered with the administration of justice and caused damages through professional and personal misconduct, negligence, and obstruction of justice.

The Defendants requested that the Court review the Statement of Claim pursuant to Civil Practice Note 7 (“CPN7”), which uses Rule 3.68 to permit the summary review and dismissal of a claim, defence, action, application, or proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. After reviewing the facts and law, Nixon ACJ found that the Statement of Claim appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Court’s first concern was that the Statement of Claim appeared to be an indirect attempt by the Plaintiff’s former lawyer, who was not a party to the Action, but who may have authored the Statement of Claim, to challenge LAA’s practices and procedures. Nixon ACJ stated that lawyers cannot properly use litigants as “strawmen” to advance litigation that may be frivolous, vexatious, or abusive and that a penalty pursuant to Rule 10.49 or Rule 10.50 may be appropriate in those circumstances. The Court’s second concern was that Section 4(2) of the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8, provides LAA with statutory immunity from Actions concerning anything done in good faith in operating a legal aid plan, including the appointment of counsel.

Nixon ACJ issued an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding Notice and gave the Plaintiff, his former lawyer, and the Defendants an opportunity to provide Written Submissions addressing the apparent deficiencies in the Statement of Claim. After receiving any Written Submissions, the Court would determine whether to strike all or part of the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68. Nixon ACJ also authorized the Defendants to prepare and serve an Interim Order staying the Action until completion of the CPN7 process, dispensing with the requirement for approval by the Plaintiff and his former counsel pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).