The Federal Court has declared a self-represented litigant, who was a former trust advisor to the Piikani Nation, a “vexatious litigant” — imposing strict limitations on her ability to initiate or participate in proceedings before the Court without prior leave.
The Court found that L.K. had engaged in a pattern of litigation conduct over nearly two decades that “demonstrates a pattern of unnecessary and repetitive claims; unsubstantiated and scandalous arguments; and irrelevant and excessively voluminous materials.”
As a result, any ongoing proceedings she has before the Court are now stayed unless she obtains permission to proceed, and she must seek leave for any new proceedings or participation in matters commenced by others.
The decision underscores the Court’s mandate to protect judicial resources from misuse, stating that “[t]he Federal Courts are community property that exists to serve everyone, not a private resource that can be commandeered in damaging ways.”
Nearly two decades of litigation stemming from termination
L.K.’s involvement in litigation stems from her dismissal in 2006 by the Piikani Nation, who had engaged her to advise on the investment of $63.4 million held in trust under a 2002 settlement agreement with Canada and Alberta.
Following her termination, the Piikani Nation commenced legal proceedings in Alberta alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. L.K. responded with multiple actions of her own, including wrongful dismissal claims, third-party claims, and allegations against former counsel and financial institutions. These proceedings eventually grew to encompass more than 30 actions in Alberta.
Her litigation extended into the Federal Courts starting in 2020, where she initiated or was involved in at least 14 proceedings, including actions, judicial reviews, and appeals. In each, she raised a wide range of allegations, many of which were described by the Court as duplicative, unsupported, or lacking jurisdictional foundation.
In one matter, L.K. filed a 192-page statement of claim against over 50 defendants and sought more than $1 billion in damages. That claim was struck without leave to amend and resulted in costs awards against her.
“It would be manifestly unfair to the parties involved and other participants vying for scarce judicial resources to permit this proceeding to continue,” the Court ruled in that case.
Broad allegations, procedural breaches
The Court noted that L.K.’s filings frequently included sweeping and unsubstantiated accusations against opposing counsel, other litigants, and the judiciary itself. Among her allegations were claims of fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation of funds, and misconduct by federal agents, lawyers, and band officials.
She routinely submitted filings that breached procedural rules, missed deadlines, and failed to comply with case management orders. In several instances, she attempted to join proceedings where she had no standing or intervened by submitting unsolicited communications to the Court.
The Court highlighted her submission of a 10,839-page responding record that was ultimately rejected for filing and said her affidavit materials were “repetitive and disorganized.”
In her oral submissions, L.K. argued the Court had ignored the merits of her claims, which she characterized as a long-standing effort to uncover the mismanagement of trust funds. She said she has been “silenced” and treated unfairly because she is self-represented and lives with a certified disability. She also described herself as a whistleblower and accused the Attorney General of acting in bad faith.
The Court acknowledged her frustration but ruled that these arguments do not justify her litigation conduct. “Good intentions do not excuse repeated breaches of court rules or orders – especially when those breaches become abusive and ungovernable,” the ruling stated.
Ongoing conduct reinforces Court’s decision
The Court concluded that the conduct exhibited by L.K. throughout the vexatious litigant application itself further justified the order. In previous motions to stay or strike the Attorney General’s application, she raised irrelevant matters and repeated baseless accusations.
“She has been prolific in her filings in this Court,” the decision noted. “These filings… tend to include voluminous materials that are largely unrelated to the subject matter of the proceeding at hand… and typically consume considerable resources of the generally multiple responding parties and of the Court.”
Despite repeated warnings and several previous rulings labelling her conduct as “vexatious,” “scandalous,” and “abusive,” L.K. continued to file new applications and repeat arguments already struck or dismissed.
The Court also pointed to rulings in Alberta, where she was found in contempt for failing to comply with cost enforcement procedures and where case management judges had similarly limited her ability to file claims without approval.
While L.K. argued that an Alberta court’s refusal to designate her as a vexatious litigant should prevent a similar finding federally, the Federal Court rejected that position. “It is for the Federal Court – not the Alberta courts – to determine its own jurisdiction,” it stated.
Declaration and costs awarded
The Court formally declared L.K. a vexatious litigant and ordered that:
- She may not commence or participate in any Federal Court proceedings without first obtaining leave;
- All current proceedings in her name are stayed pending leave;
- She must pay the Attorney General $5,220 in costs.
The Attorney General had initially sought $10,000 but was awarded the lesser amount, deemed proportionate given the time and resources expended.
Though L.K. expressed concern that the designation would harm her credibility and hinder her pursuit of justice, the Court ruled that the safeguards imposed by section 40 of the Federal Courts Act are essential to protect both litigants and the Court from the burden of abusive litigation.
“Her litigation conduct rises to a level justifying a leave-granting process,” the Court concluded.
For more information, see Canada (Attorney General) v. Kostic, 2025 FC 621 (CanLII).
