Summary

Keywords

Judgments and orders — Declaratory judgments — Vexatious litigant order — Respondent failing to provide Minister and Solicitor General with required notice that he was seeking to have applicant declared a vexatious litigant — Respondent’s application to rectify the deficiency granted — Whether the second order was null and void for lack of jurisdiction — Whether the lack of a statutory requirement in the initial application of Judicature Act application could be cured by the respondent even if the permission application in the Court of Appeal was already granted — Whether decision of Court of Appeal should be set aside

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

On February 16, 2022, the court imposed indefinite court access restrictions on the applicant pursuant to the Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, ss. 23-23.1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal that decision was denied, except on one specific issue. It was not disputed that the respondent, when making his application to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant, failed to notify the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, as required under s. 23.1(1). That section allows the Minister an absolute right to engage in the process. The respondent applied to vary the Vexatious Litigant Order to indicate that the Minister had been notified. The question for the court was whether the respondent’s initial failure to provide notice to the Minister had any substantive effect on the granting of the Vexatious Litigation Order.

The original Vexatious Litigant Order was varied nunc pro tunc to add to the preamble that the Minister and Solicitor General had been given notice of the Judicature Act application and indicated that they would not be taking any position on the matter. The applicant’s application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

Lower Court Rulings