The Court struck out a self-represented applicants' statement of claim as a discursive narrative from which it was impractical for the respondents to plead, granting leave to replead in compliance with the rules. The Court declined to dismiss the proceedings for abuse of process, holding that the material did not establish that the predominant purpose was collateral, while leaving open the possibility of a future application if further material emerged. The Court also held that the applicant's prior criminal conviction for assault arising from the same incident did not give rise to res judicata or issue estoppel in the civil proceeding because the parties were different, and the claim was not necessarily foredoomed to failure on its face.
The full text is available to signed-in members.