Case information

Judgments and orders — Declaratory judgments — Vexatious litigant — Vexatious litigant order varied nunc pro tunc to indicate that the Minister had been served with notice of vexatious litigant proceedings after original order was made — Applicant’s application seeking leave to appeal that decision dismissed — Whether Queen’s Bench judge erred in basing orders on the applicant’s piecemeal filing in the first Judicature Act application — Whether the Court should set aside decision of Alberta Court of Appeal that the first Vexatious Litigant appeal was moot — Whether first Judicature Act application resulted in denial of natural justice to the applicant — Whether Queen’s Bench judge acted with biasness and partiality in orders issued and in imposing excessive costs and security for costs against the applicant — Whether there is a fundamental right to follow statutory requirements in the initial application — Whether there are conflicting decisions in the lower courts regarding vexatious litigants<br>

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 applicant was declared a vexatious litigant. He was granted leave to appeal that decision only on the basis that the respondent had failed to notify the Minister that he was seeking the vexatious litigant order. The respondent applied to vary the vexatious litigant order and provided notice to the Minister. The Minister advised that they would not be participating in the application. Rooke A.C.J. varied the vexatious litigant order nunc pro tunc, to rectify the previous failure to serve the Minister. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed as moot.