Vexatious Litigants, Meads, and the Hermeticism of Law

Abstract

Following from understandable concerns about costs of legal services, coupled with the need to ensure greater access to justice for citizens, it comes as no surprise that the number of Self-Represented Litigants, or SRLs, has been on the rise. But the ever-increasing presence of SRLs creates a tension in an already-overburdened legal system—between fostering access to justice on the one hand, and trying to manage an entire class of untrained users on the other. This study examines a particular class of SRL, the so-called Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial (OPCA) litigant, a descriptor introduced by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v Meads, a now seminal Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruling. Specifically, this thesis reflects on how OPCA litigants are resistant to accepting highly standardized or entrenched legal methods of interpretation, and how the concept of judicial authority in certain respects fails to function in the case of OPCA litigants. This, in turn, impedes the access to justice ideal. Related, this study examines how OPCA litigants (and SRLs in general) are “outsiders” to a legal system, where the judiciary and lawyers enjoy the status of “insiders.” In this regard, this study employs an interdisciplinary analysis, drawing from realms such as religious studies, social psychology, and philosophy, to show how the law’s “othering” of these litigants creates further alienation between the two sides. While this study focuses on the above issues specifically in relation to the OPCA phenomenon, it is an analysis that ultimately has much broader implications in terms of the quest for greater access to justice. Ultimately, this study is intended to point to how issues relating to legal hermeneutics, judicial authority, and an insider/outsider dichotomy all have a significant bearing on the ever-elusive quest for meaningful access to justice.