After the Plaintiff filed a one-line Statement of Claim seeking $250,000 for perjury, Michalyshyn J. reviewed it pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”) to determine whether it should be struck as hopeless and abusive. Michalyshyn J. explained that CPN7 was implemented to manage Actions that appear on their face to be abusive. Through CPN7, the Court issues a written Decision setting out the issues upon which the Statement of Claim may be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. The party filing the apparently abusive Statement of Claim may then provide written submissions demonstrating why the Action is legitimate. Michalyshyn J noted that CPN7 has a narrow focus and is to be used only in “clearer cases of abuse”.

After reviewing the Statement of Claim, Michalyshyn J. held that it appeared suitable for review under CPN7. The Action was stayed, and the Plaintiff was invited to provide a written submission explaining why it should not be struck out in whole or in part pursuant to Rule 3.68 within 14 days.

Michalyshyn J. also noted that the Plaintiff had filed several documents containing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”), which warrant immediate and broad Court intervention. Michalyshyn J. gave the parties 14 days to provide written submissions about whether the Plaintiff should be subject to Court access restrictions. His Lordship also imposed interim Court access restrictions due to the Plaintiff’s use of OPCA, and dispensed with the Plaintiff’s approval of the Order pursuant to Rule 9.4(c).