Summary

Keywords

Courts — Civil procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Vexatious litigant — Case management – Applicant seeking to appeal from order purportedly made by judge during judicial management conference — Court of Appeal quashing appeal as nullity — Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77, s. 6.

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.

In 2012, applicant Chang Jacques brought a claim against the respondent doctor, Jennifer Muir, based in negligence and lack of informed consent. The negligence claim was subsequently dismissed. In 2015, the informed consent claim was settled, monies were paid, and Ms. Jacques signed a full and final release of any further claims.

Since then, Ms. Jacques has brought numerous actions, requisitions, petitions, and appeals and requisitions relating to the same subject matter as in the 2012 action. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia noted that in this instance Ms. Jacques appeared to be attempting to appeal from: (i) comments or a direction a judge may have made in a judicial case conference, to the effect that the matter had been concluded as far as the courts were concerned; and (ii) two emails from Supreme Court scheduling, stating that Ms Jacques had no further remedy in that court.

The Court of Appeal concluded that these comments and emails were not orders and were not appealable under the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77. The court quashed the appeal as a nullity and declared Ms. Jacques to be a vexatious litigant, restricting her from commencing further proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

Lower Court Rulings