TOMA v ALBERTA (SERVICE), 2021 ABQB 178
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
The Applicant had previously made an Application which Associate Chief Justice Nielsen had ruled to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”), and had ordered, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7, and that the Applicant had 14 days to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen reviewed the written submissions provided by the Applicant to the Court and determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68.
Associate Chief Justice Nielsen also ruled that the Applicant’s approval of the Order granted was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).View CanLII Details