Halting Vexatious Litigants In Their Tracks

Published date11 November 2021
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
Law FirmField LLP
AuthorMr Gregory Sim, Daisy Feehan and Alisha Hurley

Many regulators have to deal with vexatious litigants. Some complainants or registrants commence baseless legal proceedings against the regulator if they disagree with its decisions. Responding to these proceedings is time-intensive and expensive, especially if the regulators' insurance doesn't cover the allegations that are made.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench's Civil Practice Note No. 7 ('CNP7') created a new tool for litigants, including regulators, to deal with vexatious litigation. Under CPN7, a legal proceeding that appears to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process can be brought to the Court's attention. No formal court application or court appearance is necessary, and the process is conducted entirely in writing. All that is required is a letter asking the Court to review the legal proceeding under CPN7.

If the Court reviews the pleadings and determines that the proceeding appears to be without merit, to have no prospect of success, or to be vexatious or abusive, the proceeding is deemed an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding ('AVAP'). The Court will then give the Apparently Vexatious Litigant ('AVL') who commenced the proceeding an opportunity to explain why their proceeding should not be struck out. After reviewing the AVL's explanation and the regulator's response, the Court may strike the proceeding or allow it to proceed.

The following are some stereotypical features of vexatious litigation 1:

  • escalating proceedings, where issues in one proceeding are repeated in subsequent proceedings, sometimes resulting in simultaneous active overlapping proceedings;
  • seeking forms of relief that cannot be obtained;
  • advancing incomprehensible arguments and allegations;
  • bringing proceedings for improper purposes, such as retaliation;
  • persistently taking unsuccessful appeals which were intended to incur costs and cause delay; and
  • unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct.

A recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench used CPN7 to strike a lawsuit advanced against a regulator by a complainant. In Freeman v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Freeman filed a Statement of Claim against The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). It was one of several lawsuits he had filed against various defendants based on the same set of circumstances. APEGA referred the proceeding to the Court under CPN7, and the Court concluded the proceeding had...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT