Being pulled into the same lawsuit repeatedly by the same party is costly, disruptive, and unfair to defendants. Long-awaited guidance from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB” or the “Court”) regarding the identification and management of “vexatious litigants” has finally been provided. In the recent decisions of Reagan v Bushell, 2026 ABKB 300 (“Reagan”) and Stashin v Van Norman, 2026 ABKB 297 (“Stashin”), the ABKB illustrates how the Court will balance fairness and access to justice in the context of self-represented litigants with the protection of defendants from repetitive, meritless, or harassing claims, and the precious judicial resources unfairly used by vexatious litigation.
This article explains what the Court did in these cases, how the Civil Practice Note 7 (PDF) (“CPN7”) process works in practice, and what practical options are available if you are facing repetitive, meritless, or harassing claims in Alberta.
Reagan: Breaching court orders and relitigation
The plaintiff in the April 2026 decision of Reagan was known to the ABKB. In its 2025 decision in Reagan v Birnie-Browne, 2025 ABKB 380 (“Birnie-Browne”), the Court summarily dismissed the same plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in that action. The Court issued an interim order preventing the plaintiff from commencing any further litigation without the Court’s leave.
The plaintiff subsequently filed the lawsuit against the defendant in Reagan. That defendant had also been named as a defendant in Birnie-Browne and the allegations in the two actions were the same. The plaintiff was found to be in direct contravention of the interim prohibition order by which he was not allowed to start any new claims without permission from the Court. The new action was declared frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process, and it was stayed pending further steps, which would see the CPN7 Vexatious Litigant procedure (described below) followed.
Stashin: A “surreal litigation odyssey”
The Court in Stashin described the case before it as “a surreal litigation odyssey”.[1] Following the sale of a residential property in 2021, the plaintiff commenced litigation against the defendant purchasers, as well as her real estate lawyers, agents, broker, and mortgagor. She alleged negligence, breaches of fiduciary duty, and statutory violations, seeking recission of the sale.
Summary judgment and settlement
Applications Judge Farrington granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant purchasers. The plaintiff appealed. On the eve of the appeal hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement requiring the plaintiff to:
- pay settlement amounts;
- file a discontinuance; and
- execute a mutual release barring further litigation arising from the transaction.
Breaching the release and relitigation
In breach of the release, the plaintiff commenced another action in late 2025 against the same defendants, this time adding her husband as a co-defendant. Justice Devlin described the 2025 action as “largely the risen zombie of the 2023 Action, draped in the rags of a new legal theory to overcome the Settlement.”[2] The original defendants all filed a statement of defence relying on the release as a complete answer to this claim. The plaintiff’s husband, however, did not file a defence, and the plaintiff obtained a Noting in Default against him. She then filed a discontinuance of the claims against all the other defendants, all of whom sought costs against the plaintiff.
Abuse of process
The plaintiff attempted to use the Noting in Default against her husband to argue that because he did not defend, he acquiesced to all her claims and his litigation rights pursuant to the property sale vested in her. The Court rejected this argument, finding this strategy was an abuse of process. The Court similarly rejected arguments that the plaintiff required the discontinuance due to a now-resolved medical situation or that the settlement was invalid under the Land Titles Act.
The Court ultimately confirmed that:
- the sale documents were validly executed;
- title was properly registered in the purchasers’ names; and
- the transaction should stand in both law and equity.
The Court concluded that the litigation was meritless from the outset and had unfairly subjected bona fide purchasers for value to years of stress and expense.[3] The Court ordered that, in the absence of the Court’s prior approval, the plaintiff would not be permitted to file any further materials or applications related to her actions, or against any of the named parties, for any reason based on the sale or settlement.
How to handle a potentially vexatious litigant
In both Reagan and Stashin, the ABKB imposed restrictions preventing the applicant from filing further litigation materials without court approval. Alberta courts refer to such orders as Grepe v Loam orders or “Limited Civil Restraint Orders.”[4] Instead of declaring a person a vexatious litigant, which broadly restricts access to courts, the ABKB prefers these limited orders to protect access to justice while preventing repeated abuse of court processes.
The vexatious litigant toolbox: CPN7, Rule 3.68, and Sections 23-23.1 of the Judicature Act
Both cases referred to CPN7, section 23-23.1 of the Judicature Act,[5] and rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court.[6] Rule 3.68 empowers the Court to strike pleadings, enter judgment, stay proceedings, or strike affidavits that are frivolous, improper, or abusive. [7] CPN7 establishes a streamlined summary process where a claim appears vexatious on its face. This process includes the following steps:
- The Court must serve an Apparent Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”) Notice on the allegedly vexatious party stating that the Court is considering making an order to stay or dismiss the application or proceeding;
- the alleged vexatious litigant then has 14 days to respond with a written submission of 10 pages or less, filed with the Court and served on every other party to the proceeding;
- if the alleged vexatious litigant does not file such notice, the Court may stay or dismiss the AVAP without further notice to any party;
- any party who is served with the alleged vexatious litigant’s written submission may respond within 7 days by filing a written response of 10 pages or less with the Court and serving that response on the alleged vexatious litigant and all other parties to the proceeding; and
- after receiving a written submission and response, the Court must apply rule 3.68.[8]
Any party to the proceedings may file a written request for an order to stay or dismiss the proceeding as an AVAP. If the Court makes an order staying or dismissing an AVAP, the Clerk must serve a copy on the alleged vexatious litigant and all other parties to the proceeding as soon as possible. The Court may also issue an order prohibiting the alleged vexatious litigant from making further applications without the Court’s permission.
Sections 23-23.1 of the Judicature Act provide a similar mechanism but require notice to the Minister of Justice of Alberta. Section 23 provides that initiating vexatious proceedings or continuing a proceeding in a vexatious manner includes persistently:
- bringing proceedings to determine an issue that was already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;
- bringing proceedings that cannot succeed or have no reasonable expectation of providing relief;
- bringing proceedings for improper purposes;
- using previously raised grounds and issues in subsequent proceedings inappropriately;
- failing to pay costs of unsuccessful proceedings (applies to the person who commenced those proceedings);
- taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions; or
- engaging in inappropriate courtroom behaviour.[9]
The Court in both Reagan and Stashin used the CPN7/Rule 3.68 process, rather than the Judicature Act, as the CPN7/rule 3.68 process provides a streamlined process to achieve the same results.
Practical takeaways
The ABKB typically relies on rule 3.68 and CPN7 to handle potentially vexatious litigants who initiate multiple claims, attempt to relitigate decided matters, or abuse court processes. To counter vexatious litigation, a party may:
- apply for an order to stay or dismiss pursuant to rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court; or
- apply for an order to stay or dismiss pursuant to sections 23-23.1 of the Judicature Act while notifying the Minister of Justice of the request.
If you are facing repetitive, meritless, or abusive litigation, strategic use of Rule 3.68 and CPN7, or the Judicature Act, can significantly reduce unnecessary expenses and disruptions. If you have concerns about vexatious litigation, the Commercial Litigation lawyers at Miller Thomson can help you assess your options and develop a plan.
[1] Stashin v Van Norman, 2026 ABKB 297 (“Stashin”) at paras 2 and 8.
[4] Reagan v Birnie-Browne, 2025 ABKB 380 (“Birnie-Browne”) at para 8.
[8] Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, “Civil Practice Note 7,” online: <https://www.albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/qb/civil-practice-note-7—vexatious-application-proceeding-show-cause-procedure.pdf?sfvrsn=cb2fa480_10>.
[9] Supra note 5 at section 23.
