They exaggerated personal injury claims and attempted to circumvent prior rulings
The Court of King's Bench of Alberta declared a family of five vexatious litigants, finding they had engaged in persistent, escalating, and abusive litigation, including exaggerated personal injury claims and attempts to circumvent prior rulings.
The legal disputes began with three lawsuits related to motor vehicle incidents. While the defendants admitted liability for the accidents, they disputed the extent of the injuries. The court found that the claims of severe impairment were exaggerated and unsupported by evidence. Surveillance footage showed physical activities inconsistent with reported disabilities. The trial judge dismissed the cases, ruling that there was no basis for the injury claims and that the evidence established a pattern of fabrication.
Following this dismissal, the family filed additional lawsuits against lawyers, insurance companies, and expert witnesses involved in the litigation. Another claim, initiated by the wife and children, sought millions in damages and alleged misconduct by judiciary members. The court determined that these proceedings were an improper attempt to circumvent earlier rulings and constituted an abuse of the legal system.
The court outlined a pattern of persistent and escalating misconduct in its decision. The court found that the family ignored previous case management orders, used family members as proxies to continue litigation, and made baseless accusations against legal professionals and court officials. The judge also noted that the conduct in court was disruptive and, at times, threatening.
As a result, the court imposed strict access restrictions, requiring approval from a senior judge before any new legal action could proceed. In addition, the court issued a permanent restraining order, prohibiting contact with a broad range of individuals involved in the prior litigation. This ruling prevents the family from pursuing further litigation unless they obtain specific permission. The court emphasized that the decision was necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial process and prevent further misuse of court resources.