Alberta Court of Appeal says Victims Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to vexatious litigant’s civil case

In a proceeding where the applicant faced permanent court access restrictions due to a pattern of vexatious litigation, the Alberta Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the striking of his claim that named two associate chief justices as respondents. 

Despite being subject to a vexatious litigant order since July 2022, the applicant in Christofi v Kahane, 2026 ABCA 60, filed a statement of claim against the respondent without first seeking leave from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. 

The respondent informed the court about the improperly filed claim. The applicant then brought an application naming D. Blair Nixon, associate chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench in Calgary, and Ken G. Nielsen, associate chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench in Edmonton, as respondents. 

In December 2025, Nixon, sitting as a chambers judge, struck the claim as improper and abusive of process. Nixon interpreted the application as seeking: 

• leave to apply to remove all restrictions and court orders imposed on the applicant based on a breach of his rights under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, 2015 
• Nixon’s and Nielsen’s recusal from any cases involving the applicant, the respondent’s professional corporation, and another party 

The applicant applied for permission to appeal Nixon’s order. He wanted the respondent to return more than $32,000 in supposedly stolen funds and wanted the court to award him a judgment and damages amounting to $400,000 for alleged wrongs. 

The applicant cited s. 19(1) of the Victims Bill of Rights, which stated, “The rights of victims under this Act are to be exercised through the mechanisms provided by law.” He asserted that Nixon: 

• erroneously denied him recourse to the safeguards in the Victims Bill of Rights 
• lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because a different chambers judge had been handling the case 

Permission to appeal denied

The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the application for permission to appeal upon determining that the applicant’s complaints failed to raise an important or potentially meritorious legal question or precedent. 

According to the appeal court, allowing the appeal to proceed would result in prejudice, as litigants should be able to rely on court orders, including those setting access restrictions on vexatious litigants. 

First, the appeal court ruled that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights did not apply to this civil proceeding. The appeal court explained that s. 19(1) did not entitle victims to mechanisms not provided by law. 

Even if the Victims Bill of Rights had applied, the appeal court saw no avenue of appeal, as s. 29 stated, “No appeal lies from any decision or order solely on the grounds that a right under this Act has been infringed or denied.” 

Second, the appeal court held that the applicant failed to establish a limitation to Nixon’s jurisdiction. The appeal court found no basis to issue any order regarding the judgment enforcement process. The appeal court added that the request for monetary relief was not properly before it. 

Lastly, the appeal court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. The appeal court deemed enhanced costs appropriate, given the litigation history, including the nature of the applicant’s repeated accusations against the respondent.