Case information

Charter of Rights — Freedom of expression — Access to justice — Judgments and orders —Interlocutory order — Application judge adjourning applicant’s and respondent’s applications and making interim order enjoining the applicant from filing further materials in the proceedings or from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave of the court —Whether Court of Appeal failed to vacate the chambers judge’s injunctions made against the self-represented applicant in breach of her s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of expression — Whether infringement can be saved by s. 1 of the Charter — Whether Court of Appeal made errors in law in finding that the chambers judge did not have to hear from the self represented Applicant although required to do so — Whether Court of Appeal adopted a flawed “stand still order” in its decision to send the applicant back before the chambers judge without first vacating the injunctions made ex parte and solely against her while she waited to be heard by teleconference.

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.

Ms. Walker practiced law in British Columbia for many years until 2014. Her membership in the respondent Law Society was terminated in 2016. The Law Society eventually became the custodian of her files. She obtained an order allowing her access to the files in order to view and photograph them. She brought a motion citing the Law Society for contempt of that order on the basis that the Law Society sent more representatives than permitted to the storage site, which caused unreasonable interference with her ability to review her files. The Law Society filed an application for a vexatious litigant order. The applications were set down for three days of hearing in October 2019. The first day was dedicated to Ms. Walker’s contempt application and it was largely completed except for Ms. Walker’s reply. The following day, the vexatious litigant application was supposed to be heard but Ms. Walker sent word that she would be unable to attend the hearing due her doctor’s orders and asked that the matter be adjourned. Counsel for the Law Society asked the court to proceed. The application judge allowed the matter to proceed in the absence of the applicant but he adjourned both applications on terms. He enjoined the applicant from filing any additional materials in the proceedings and enjoined her from instituting any further legal proceedings relating to the respondent without leave of the court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal from that decision.