Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Court enforced a strict “Fiat Process,” requiring parties to obtain permission before bringing applications in the case-managed actions.

• Kostic’s Fiat Request was denied for non-compliance with the Fiat Process and for failing to provide a clear, complete, and particularized evidentiary basis for her claims.

• The Court found Kostic lacked standing in the 2201 Action and that her proposed claims against Gowlings and others were unclear, overly broad, and failed to disclose a viable cause of action.

• Much of the alleged conduct by Gowlings was found to be protected by absolute privilege, as it related to statements made in the context of litigation.

• Kostic was not permitted to participate in the Injunction Claim Process, nor to file her Proposed Claim in the 2201 Action or as a new action.

• Gowlings was found prima facie entitled to costs for successfully opposing Kostic’s Fiat Request, with a process set for cost submissions if the parties could not agree.

Background and facts

This decision concerns a Fiat Request by Liliana Kostic in the context of ongoing case-managed actions overseen by the Honourable Justice M.A. Marion since December 2024. The Fiat Process, established by the Court, requires parties to seek permission before bringing applications in these actions.

On February 8, 2022, Piikani Nation filed an ex parte application for an injunction against certain respondents (the 2201 Respondents) in Action 2201, alleging that they had conducted an unauthorized election to replace the Piikani Nation Chief and Council. Justice Poelman granted an Interim Injunction on February 8, 2022, which was varied on February 11, 2022. On February 15, 2022, the 2201 Respondents applied to set aside the Interim Injunction, adding Kostic, Gowling WLG, and Caireen Hanert as respondents. On February 23, 2022, ACJ Rooke struck Kostic, Gowling WLG, and Hanert as respondents and appointed himself as case management justice for the 2201 Action. The originating application and the application to set aside the Interim Injunction were never heard on their merits, and the Interim Injunction remained in place for over three years.

On May 8, 2025, Kostic wrote to the Court expressing her intention to commence a defamation action. She was directed to provide a Fiat Request with her proposed statement of claim by June 27, 2025. Kostic did not comply by that date but eventually submitted her Fiat Request on July 14, 2025.

Kostic’s Proposed Claim, spanning 55 pages and 150 paragraphs, sought to advance claims against Gowlings, Hanert, Jane Doe, and unspecified “others.” The claims included defamation, malicious falsehood, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, unlawful invasions of privacy, misappropriation of confidential information, breach of contract, breach of statutory duty, “resource wastage,” and financial misappropriation, among others. Kostic claimed not less than $25 million in damages, at least $1 million in aggravated damages, and at least $2.5 million in punitive damages, as well as various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court described the Proposed Claim as excessively repetitive, disorganized, argumentative, conclusory, and confusing, covering alleged wrongs over a two-decade history.

Policy terms and procedural framework

The Fiat Process required a clear, particularized application and supporting evidence. Kostic’s Fiat Request did not include a proposed application, and her affidavit was incomplete and lacked referenced exhibits. The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the Court to advise parties on how to proceed or to supplement their applications.

Analysis and outcome

The Court addressed the following issues:

• Non-compliance with the Fiat Process: Kostic’s Fiat Request was rejected for not complying with the procedural requirements, including the lack of a proposed application and incomplete affidavit.

• Standing and participation: Kostic was not a party to the 2201 Action, having been struck as a respondent in February 2022. The Court found she could not participate in the Injunction Claim Process, which was intended for 2201 Respondents who suffered damages or losses due to the Interim Injunction. Kostic did not provide particulars of any damages or losses resulting from her brief naming as a respondent.

• Merits of the proposed claim: The Court found the Proposed Claim was unclear about its intended defendants, was based on conclusory assertions, and failed to provide sufficient particulars to support the alleged causes of action. Many claims were found to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act. The Court also noted that much of the alleged defamatory conduct was protected by absolute privilege, as it related to statements made in the context of litigation or court proceedings.

• Procedural abuse and duplication: The Court found that allowing Kostic’s Proposed Claim would add complexity, expense, and delay to the resolution of the case-managed actions, and that similar claims had been previously dismissed in other courts as vexatious or abusive.

• Alternative avenues: The Court clarified that Kostic was not prevented from filing a properly pleaded defamation claim against Piikani Nation or individuals for alleged publications outside the case-managed actions, but made no comment on the merits or timeliness of any such claim.

Conclusion and costs

The Court dismissed Kostic’s Fiat Request. Gowlings, having successfully opposed the request, was found prima facie entitled to costs, with a process outlined for written cost submissions if the parties could not agree. No specific monetary award was determined at this stage, but Gowlings was identified as the successful party in this decision.