In a prior hearing, the Originating Application of the Plaintiff, Mr. Weidenfeld, had been struck pursuant to Rule 3.68 because it reflected an attempt to re-litigate previously settled issues and attacked the Court’s conclusions on those issues. The Court had also held that the Application had no basis in law.

The Court had previously considered whether Mr. Weidenfeld was an appropriate candidate for litigant management. He had repeatedly re-litigated the same issues, had an aggressive pattern of attacking counsel and Court clerks, and had a history of abusive litigation. An interim Court access gatekeeping Order was placed on Mr. Weidenfeld pursuant to the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 (“Judicature Act”), pending possible further Application by the Defendant for a permanent Order.

The Defendant opted not to make such an Application. Kendell J. therefore opted to instigate the Application on her own motion, pursuant to sections 23 and 23.1 of the Judicature Act. Justice Kendell gave Mr. Weidenfeld an opportunity to make written submissions on the Application. He failed to address the matters at issue in his written submissions.

On review of the various claims argued by Mr. Weidenfeld, Kendell J. concluded that he was an abusive litigant. She recognized that the litigation management process relies on the litigant’s cooperation. Given Mr. Weidenfeld’s behaviour, Justice Kendell concluded that Mr. Weidenfeld should be subject to an indefinite and global Court access gatekeeping Order. The need for Mr. Weidenfeld’s approval as to the form of Order was dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).