Canada (Attorney General) v. Kostic

Canada (Attorney General) v. Kostic

Applying the interest of justice test, the Court found Kostic raised a serious issue but failed to show irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored a stay; late-filed reply affidavit and reply record were inadmissible; because indemnity/save-harmless issues must be resolved on trial or in Alberta proceedings they do not justify delaying the vexatious litigant application, and the stay was denied.

Citation
2024 FC 1238
Parties
Applicant (respondent on Motion): The Attorney General of Canada; Respondent (applicant on Motion): Liliana Kostic
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Vexatious Litigant Application; Stay Motion / Motion to Stay (denied)
Outcome
Stay denied
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Stay of Proceedings, Indemnity, Costs, Recusal, Forum Shopping, Admissibility of Affidavits
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Federal Courts Administrative Law Indigenous Peoples Law Contract Law Vexatious Litigant Stay of Proceedings Indemnity +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Canada

Applicant (respondent on Motion)

Liliana Kostic

Respondent (applicant on Motion)

Procedural Posture

Vexatious Litigant Application; Stay Motion / Motion to Stay (denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay under s 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act
  2. 2 Whether alleged indemnity/save-harmless obligations give rise to a serious issue and justify a stay
  3. 3 Whether the moving party established irreparable harm

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the interest of justice test, the Court found Kostic raised a serious issue but failed to show irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored a stay; late-filed reply affidavit and reply record were inadmissible; because indemnity/save-harmless issues must be resolved on trial or in Alberta proceedings they do not justify delaying the vexatious litigant application, and the stay was denied.

Court Disposition

Stay denied

Orders

  • The motion seeking to stay the Vexatious Litigant Application is denied
  • Costs of the stay motion will be relief considered as part of the Vexatious Litigant Application, at the discretion of the Judge hearing same