Articles<< back to all Articles
In the recent Alberta case of Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta v Drover, 2021 ABQB 511, a vexatious litigant, Mr. Drover, attempted to bring legal action against APEGA. Prior to this case, APEGA had successfully applied to the Court to prevent Mr. Drover from bringing a legal proceeding against APEGA without the Court’s permission. When Mr. Drover then attempted to file a court proceeding against APEGA, the Court was required to rule on whether the action could be filed. Ultimately, Mr. Drover’s application for leave to file was dismissed on the following grounds:
- Mr. Drover had not complied with the requirements previously set by the Court;
- Mr. Drover did not provide submissions on whether the proposed litigation was valid; and
- Mr. Drover did not establish that his proposed litigation had a reasonable basis and is not an abuse of the Court.
Our Two Cents for Free
Hearings involve a wide variety of evidence and it is easy to be distracted by irrelevant or unimportant evidence. To make sure you stay focused on the issues, return to the allegations. Reviewing the evidence with consideration for the allegations to prove will keep you focused on the issues at hand.
How do you prefer to organize evidence from a hearing? Do you put it in chronological order? Do you prefer to list the facts that must be proven and then the relevant evidence for each fact? Do you have a completely different technique?
Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:
- A Case: a (very) brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
- Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
- A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.
This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.