Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff Silvana Stashin sought a CPN7 review of the Defendants' Application for Costs of Discontinued Action, alleging abuse of process and collateral attack on a non-final order.

• Central to the dispute is a contract the Plaintiff claims was found unauthorized by the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA).

• Civil Practice Note 7 invokes rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, targeting proceedings that appear frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on their face.

• Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon found CPN7 inapplicable to the Defendants' Application for Costs of Discontinued Action.

• Arguments raised by the Plaintiff were found to be more appropriately addressed before an Applications Judge in Chambers with the relevant factual background and respective evidence.

• The Endorsement preserves the Plaintiff's right to pursue other remedies under the Alberta Rules of Court regarding the costs application.

Background and parties involved

The case of Stashin v Van Norman, 2026 ABKB 72, arises from a multi-party civil dispute before the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, Calgary Registry. The Plaintiff, Silvana Quintieri Stashin, brought an action against several defendants including Robert Van Norman, Heather Van Norman, Len T. Wong, Kris Dennis, Greater Property Group, Jeffrey Kahane, Kyle Hill, Kahane Law Office, Royal Bank of Canada, and Kevin Leo Stashin as a nominal defendant. The matter before the Court in this particular endorsement concerned a narrow procedural question rather than the substantive merits of the underlying litigation.

The Plaintiff's request for CPN7 review

The procedural issue was triggered when two of the defendants, Robert and Heather Van Norman, filed an Application for Costs of Discontinued Action on January 22, 2026. In response, the Plaintiff asked the Court to review that application under Civil Practice Note 7, which sets out summary procedures under rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, designed to address claims, defences, actions, applications, or proceedings that appear on their face to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. The Plaintiff characterized the Van Normans' costs application as "an apparent abuse of process and a collateral attack on a non-final order, predicated on a contract found to be unauthorized by RECA [the Real Estate Council of Alberta]."

The Court's analysis and determination

Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon reviewed the Application for Costs of Discontinued Action and concluded that it was not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The Court found that the arguments presented by the Plaintiff could more appropriately be raised, and responded to by the Defendants, before an Applications Judge in Chambers. The parties would also be able to present the relevant factual background and their respective evidence at that time. Accordingly, the Court held that CPN7 does not apply to the Application for Costs of Discontinued Action.

Ruling and outcome

In the endorsement dated February 3, 2026, Associate Chief Justice Nixon declined the Plaintiff's request to invoke CPN7 summary procedures against the Defendants' costs application. However, the Court expressly noted that this endorsement does not prevent the Plaintiff from applying under the Alberta Rules of Court for other remedies with respect to the Application for Costs of Discontinued Action. The Plaintiff's arguments regarding the costs application may still be raised before an Applications Judge in Chambers, as directed by the Court. No specific monetary amount was determined or awarded in this endorsement, as the ruling addressed only the preliminary procedural question of whether CPN7 applied.