2.22: Self-represented litigants
2.23: Assistance before the Court
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
14.5: Appeals only with permission

Case Summary

The Respondent, Leadbetter, had made various filings and intrusions into Court processes apparently motivated by her anti-establishment beliefs which are characteristic of followers of the “Freemen-on-the-Land”, “Sovereign Citizen”, and “Detaxer” movements. As a result, the Court considered whether to deem the Respondent a vexatious litigant and to impose Court access restrictions upon her.

Michalyshyn J. confirmed that the Court has inherent authority to impose Court access restrictions on a litigant and also ruled that the common-law factors governing such an imposition weighed in favour of restricting the Respondent’s Court access. The restrictions imposed by the Court included a requirement that the Respondent seek leave from a single Appeal Judge to continue or commence an Appeal which may also result in the Respondent having to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5 even if leave is granted. Furthermore, Michalyshyn J. specifically references Rules 2.22 and 2.23, prohibited the Respondent from acting as a representative of any sort before the Court.

Michalyshyn J. then dispensed with the need to obtain the Respondent’s approval of the Order imposing Court access restrictions pursuant to Rule 9.4(2).

View CanLII Details