{"id":50297,"date":"2026-05-12T14:04:56","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T18:04:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=50297"},"modified":"2026-05-12T14:04:59","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T18:04:59","slug":"addressing-vexatious-litigants-recent-guidance-from-the-alberta-court-of-kings-bench","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/commercial-litigation\/addressing-vexatious-litigants-recent-guidance-from-the-alberta-court-of-kings-bench\/","title":{"rendered":"Addressing vexatious litigants: Recent guidance from the Alberta Court of King\u2019s Bench"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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\u2019s Bench (\u201cABKB<\/strong>\u201d or the \u201cCourt<\/strong>\u201d) regarding the identification and management of \u201cvexatious litigants\u201d has finally been provided. In the recent decisions of\u00a0 Reagan v Bushell<\/em>, 2026 ABKB 300<\/a> (\u201cReagan<\/em><\/strong>\u201d) and Stashin v Van Norman<\/em>, 2026 ABKB 297<\/a> (\u201cStashin<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article explains what the Court did in these cases, how the Civil Practice Note 7 (PDF)<\/a> (\u201cCPN7<\/strong>\u201d) process works in practice, and what practical options are available if you are facing repetitive, meritless, or harassing claims in Alberta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reagan<\/em>: Breaching court orders and relitigation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff in the April 2026 decision of Reagan<\/em> was known to the ABKB.  In its 2025 decision in Reagan v Birnie-Browne<\/em>, 2025 ABKB 380<\/a> (\u201cBirnie-Browne<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), the Court summarily dismissed the same plaintiff\u2019s claims against the defendants in that action. The Court issued an interim order preventing the plaintiff from commencing any further litigation without the Court\u2019s leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff subsequently filed the lawsuit against the defendant in Reagan. <\/em>That defendant had also been named as a defendant in Birnie-Browne <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stashin<\/em>: A \u201csurreal litigation odyssey\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Court in Stashin<\/em> described the case before it as \u201ca surreal litigation odyssey\u201d.[1]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary judgment and settlement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n