An Originating Application filed by the Appellant for habeas corpus was processed in accordance with Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”).

The Chambers Judge ruled the Application to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”) and ordered, pursuant to CPN7, that the Appellant 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. The Chambers Judge reviewed the written submissions provided by the Appellant to the Court and determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant Rule 3.68.

The Appeal Court noted that a lower Court’s decision to strike a pleading pursuant to Rule 3.68 is generally entitled to deference absent an error of law, though whether a claim constitutes an abuse of process is reviewed for correctness. The Appeal Court found that the Chambers Judge erred in holding that the pleadings amounted to an abusive, vexatious filing.

The Appeal Court also found that the Chambers Judge erred in holding that the Appellant’s habeas corpus Application combined incompatible pleadings. The Court underscored that under Rule 3.15(1)(a), Judicial Review and habeas corpus are parts of the same process. Greckol J.A. allowed the Appeal.