In its July 5, 2019 decision, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta fully and finally dismissed the lawsuit of Johnathan Karl Wayne Biley (“Biley”) against IATSE Local 210 (“the Union”).
This decision concludes the Civil Practice Note No. 7 process (“the Process”) to determine whether Biley’s statement of claim constitutes an abuse of process. The process was implemented as a result of Biley being deemed a vexatious litigant with court restrictions in a previous proceeding.
The Court initiated the first step of the Process to examine the claim in an earlier February 25 2019. In that decision the Court reviewed Biley’s lawsuit which made a myriad of demands including injunctions and damage awards against the Union. In the February 25, 2019 decision the Court identified a number of issues with the claim, including that the Union is not subject to the Charter, the claim was outside the Court’s jurisdiction and the remedies sought were disproportionate or impossible. As per the Process, Biley was given 14 days to make written submissions to explain why the claim had merit and should continue.
The Court noted that Biley’s conduct complicated the Process. Biley modified his positions, filed what was intended to be some sort of appeal, and substituted various damage claims for other damages including a $100,000 claim for constructive dismissal. The Union argued that Biley’s claims were still futile, outside the Courts jurisdiction, and not viable.
The Court examined the written submissions and the conduct of Biley and dismissed the claim. The Court found that Biley’s materials were an attempt to subvert the CPN7 process. The Court also noted that Biley’s attempts to bring litigation on behalf of a group he identified as a large vulnerable group was the same conduct criticized by the Court in earlier proceedings. The Court determined the litigation was “hopeless” and could not rebut the presumption imposed on him as a result of being deemed a vexatious litigant. The Court awarded the Union and Alberta $4,000.00 in costs each. The Court characterized this as Biley’s “last warning” and cautioned that further vexatious behaviour would lead to further restrictions and costs.