Most lawsuits end in a settlement or a decision on the merits. A small number never should have proceeded at all. When someone files repetitive, baseless, or endlessly shifting claims, they can tie up the courts and drain the time, money, and peace of mind of the people they sue. Alberta law has a name for this conduct and a set of tools to stop it.

If you are defending a frivolous lawsuit, or you are dealing with a vexatious litigant who keeps dragging you back to court, this guide from our civil litigation lawyers explains how the process works in Alberta and what a recent 2026 decision tells us about how courts respond.

What is a vexatious litigant?

A vexatious litigant is a person who uses the court process improperly: to harass an opponent, to relitigate matters that have already been decided, or to pursue claims that have no realistic chance of success. The label is less about any single filing and more about a pattern. Alberta’s leading decision on the subject, Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283, and the earlier case of Dykun v Odinshaw, 2000 ABQB 548, describe the common warning signs, including bringing actions to decide an issue that has already been determined, pursuing claims that obviously cannot succeed, and rolling proceedings forward with constantly expanding allegations.

Vexatious litigation is not the same as a weak case brought in good faith. Courts are careful to protect the right of ordinary people, including self-represented litigants, to have genuine disputes heard. The tools described below are reserved for conduct that crosses the line from difficult to abusive.

How Alberta courts deal with abusive litigation

Alberta gives judges several ways to manage and shut down litigation that amounts to an abuse of process.

Striking a claim under Rule 3.68. Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (Alta Reg 124/2010) lets a court strike out all or part of a claim, or stay a proceeding, where the pleading discloses no reasonable claim, is frivolous or improper, or constitutes an abuse of process. This is the workhorse rule for ending a hopeless action.

Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7). CPN7, also called the Vexatious Application/Proceeding Show Cause Procedure, is a streamlined process for reviewing and dismissing litigation that appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It is read together with Rule 3.68. Because CPN7 can resolve a matter on written submissions with a reversed burden and limited evidence, courts treat it as reserved for exceptional cases, a point confirmed in De’Medici v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ABKB 210, and Wilyman v Cole, 2024 ABCA 41.

Court access restriction orders. In more serious cases, a court can require a litigant to obtain permission before filing anything further. These orders, sometimes called vexatious litigant orders, are available through the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, and the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. They are the strongest remedy and are used when lesser measures have failed to stop the abuse.

Costs. Throughout, courts can order a litigant to pay the other side’s legal costs. Repeated costs awards are both a consequence of abusive conduct and a signal that a matter may warrant closer scrutiny.

A 2026 case study: Katelnikoff v Day

The recent decision in Katelnikoff v Day, 2026 ABKB 527, shows the CPN7 process at work and illustrates why courts eventually step in.

The dispute began with an incident at a polling station during a municipal by-election in Irricana, Alberta. The plaintiff filed a claim in May 2022 seeking a civil restraining order against two men. What should have been a straightforward matter instead produced more than thirty court appearances over four years. The plaintiff filed repeated applications for restraining orders, all of which were denied for lack of evidence of any imminent danger. She was barred from the court’s urgent list until a proper hearing could be held, faced a contempt application, failed to answer undertakings, and had costs awarded against her. One of the two defendants had died months after the claim was filed.

At the defence’s request, the court reviewed the claim under CPN7. Before deciding anything, it issued a formal notice (reported at Katelnikoff v Day, 2026 ABKB 27) setting out its concerns and inviting the plaintiff to respond. After considering her submissions, Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon struck the restraining order claim as an abuse of process under Rule 3.68(2)(d) and CPN7.

The court gave two reasons. First, the pleadings were inadequate: they contained broad, unsupported allegations with no particulars, and a defamation claim that did not meet its legal requirements. Second, the remedy had become impossible. A civil restraining order looks forward and requires proof of an ongoing risk that harassing or threatening behaviour will continue. Four years after a single incident, with the parties no longer in contact and one defendant deceased, no such basis existed. The court described the claim as focused on “an incident from the past” rather than the parties’ present relationship.

The court did not treat the plaintiff unfairly. It acknowledged that the defence had also contributed to delay, and it accepted that she may still feel genuine distress about the original event. But allowing a hopeless claim to continue indefinitely would not help her and would keep imposing costs on everyone else. The court encouraged the parties to consider a mutual no-contact order as a practical alternative.

What to do if you are facing a vexatious litigant

If you are on the receiving end of abusive litigation in Alberta, a few practical points follow from cases like Katelnikoff v Day:

Act sooner rather than later. In Katelnikoff, the court noted that the defence had signalled a summary dismissal application but never brought it, and the matter dragged on for years as a result. Raising Rule 3.68 or requesting a CPN7 review early can save significant time and expense.

Keep a clear record. Courts respond to patterns. Documenting repeated filings, ignored directions, unanswered undertakings, and unpaid costs awards builds the picture that supports a finding of abuse of process.

Ask for the right remedy. Depending on the situation, that may mean striking a claim, seeking costs, or in serious cases pursuing a court access restriction order so the litigant needs leave before filing again.

Consider practical alternatives. A mutual no-contact order or a negotiated resolution can sometimes end the underlying conflict faster than continued litigation.

Frequently asked questions

What is a vexatious litigant in Alberta?
A vexatious litigant is someone who misuses the court process, for example by filing repetitive or baseless claims, relitigating settled issues, or pursuing actions that cannot succeed. It describes a pattern of conduct rather than a single filing.

What is Civil Practice Note 7?
Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7) is an Alberta court procedure for reviewing and dismissing proceedings that appear on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It works together with Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

Can a court dismiss a frivolous lawsuit without a full trial?
Yes. Under Rule 3.68 and CPN7, a court can strike or stay a claim that discloses no reasonable case or amounts to an abuse of process, often on written submissions, without a full trial.

What is a court access restriction order?
It is an order, sometimes called a vexatious litigant order, requiring a person to obtain the court’s permission before filing further proceedings. It is a strong remedy used when other measures have not stopped abusive litigation.

How long does it take to stop a vexatious litigant?
It varies. As Katelnikoff v Day shows, matters can drag on for years if no one asks the court to intervene. Raising the issue early through Rule 3.68 or a CPN7 review is usually the fastest route to a resolution.

Talk to our civil litigation team

The Strathmore and Calgary litigation lawyers at Getz Collins and Associates helps clients across Alberta respond to frivolous and abusive litigation, whether that means defending a baseless claim, seeking costs, or pursuing a court access restriction order.

Our civil litigation team works out of our Calgary and Strathmore offices and serves clients in Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks, and the surrounding communities. If you are dealing with a vexatious litigant, contact us to discuss your options.

This article provides general legal information about Alberta law and is not legal advice. Authorities referenced: Katelnikoff v Day, 2026 ABKB 527 and 2026 ABKB 27; De’Medici v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ABKB 210; Wilyman v Cole, 2024 ABCA 41; Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283; Dykun v Odinshaw, 2000 ABQB 548; Rule 3.68 and Rule 1.2, Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010; Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2.