Category Archives: Civil Procedure

Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases

PDF version: Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases

Cases considered: R v Mack, 2012 ABCA 42, leave to appeal granted, April 11, 2013 (SCC); Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012 ABCA 352, leave to appeal dismissed April 11, 2013 (SCC); Fitzpatrick v Alberta College of Physical Therapists, 2012 ABCA 207, leave to appeal dismissed April 11, 2013 (SCC)

On April 11, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down leave to appeal decisions in three cases from Alberta.

Continue reading →

What has Meads v Meads wrought?

PDF version: What has Meads v Meads wrought?

Cases commented on: R v Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (CanLII); R v Tyskerud, 2013 BCPC 27 (CanLII); Cassa v The Queen, 2013 TCC 43 (CanLII); R v Martin, 2012 NSPC 115 (CanLII); R v Lavin, 2013 ONCJ 6 (QL); Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Gutierrez, 2012 ABQB 683 (CanLII); Stancer (Re), 2012 BCSC 1533 (CanLII); Grattan (Re), 2012 NBQB 332, [2012] NBJ No 353 (QL).

I. Introduction

Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke’s decision in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) — one of CanLII’s Top Ten Cases of 2012 — established a category of vexatious litigants that he called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. OPCA litigants “employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ … to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals” (Meads at para 1). Although those techniques and arguments are varied, the essence of the OPCA litigants’ position is that they deny the authority of the state and the courts. Both of us have commented on the Meads case previously on ABlawg: see “The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case” and “The Top Ten Canadian Legal Ethics Stories – 2012”. What we want to look at in this post is the use that has been made of Meads in the intervening six months. We will also consider the extent to which OPCA and similar litigants may influence judges to embrace styles of judgment that are disrespectful of the parties appearing before them. The post will touch on the ethical problems created when judges embrace “literary flourishes” and “dry wit” in their decisions (Katie Daubs, “Legal Decision with literary flourish and dry wit making the round…” Toronto Star, March 29, 2013).

Continue reading →

The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

PDF version: The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

Case Commented on: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

This decision by Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke was the subject of much media attention when it was released. That attention was well deserved. The lengthy and well-researched decision fills a gap in the jurisprudence and scholarship on vexatious litigants by shining a spotlight on and systematically examining a category of litigants for whom Justice Rooke coined the collective term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. These litigants are distinguishable from the more usual types of vexatious litigants because they use a collection of techniques and arguments sold by people Justice Rooke called “gurus.” His decision is valuable for several reasons: it collects all of the reported Canadian decisions dealing with OPCA litigants, it describes the indicia by which OPCA litigants can be recognized, it describes the concepts they have relied upon and the arguments they have made and why those arguments have all failed in every Canadian court, and it discusses what judges, lawyers, and litigants can do when faced with OPCA litigants.

Continue reading →

JSS BARRISTERS RULES

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP is pleased to provide summaries of recent Court Decisions which consider the Alberta Rules of Court and comment on the application of the new Rules. JSS BARRISTERS RULES provides a convenient overview of how the Courts are interpreting the new Rules.

The fourth edition of the JSS BARRISTERS RULES Newsletter is now available on our website at www.jssbarristers.ca. Our website also features a Cumulative Summary of Court Decisions which consider the Alberta Rules of Court. The Cumulative Summary of the Rules is organized by the Rule considered, and includes an expanded summary of the Decisions including key quotations from the Decisions. The Cumulative Summary will continue to be updated regularly to ensure that it provides an ongoing and current resource for those interested in the consideration of the Rules of Court on a cumulative basis

Future JSS Barristers Rules Newsletter issues will be available online at www.jssbarristers.ca. If you would like to review past publications of JSS BARRISTERS RULES or receive electronic issues of future JSS BARRISTERS RULES via email when they are published, please visit our website at www.jssbarristers.ca.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs.

PDF version: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs.

Case considered: R v Caron, 2011 ABCA 385

Gilles Caron has been a very present figure before the Alberta courts since ABlawg began posting comments in late 2007 (see here). Caron is challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s legislation on the basis that the province’s laws are not enacted in both English and French. That issue is now before the Court of Appeal (see 2010 ABCA 343 and here). Caron’s litigation has also involved an access to justice component in that he has pursued interim costs awards to fund his litigation. That issue went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the Alberta government was required to fund Caron’s language rights challenge (see 2011 SCC 5, [2011] 1 SCR 78 and here). The lingering question was, to what extent was such funding required? That issue was recently considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal. In a decision written by Justice Jean Côté, Caron was awarded far less funding than he sought for the Court of Appeal litigation, and in the form of a loan rather than a grant (see 2011 ABCA 385).

Continue reading →