Law360 Canada ( June 25, 2025, 1:49 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Stockford against a decision dismissing his action, and motion by respondent Enbridge Inc. to dismiss appellant’s appeal. The Court of King’s Bench dismissed Stockford’s claims, including his request for an injunction to freeze the respondent’s bank accounts, on the grounds that his pleadings were incoherent, frivolous and vexatious. Stockford filed an appeal, but he failed to serve or perfect his appeal, and he did not provide clear grounds or identify any legal error in the trial judge’s decision. Instead, the Notice of Appeal included additional, unsubstantiated allegations ranging from claims of government wrongdoing to accusations involving conflict-of-interest counsels and unconventional remedies. Throughout the proceedings, Stockford’s conduct demonstrated a disregard for procedural rules, as exemplified by his repeated delays and the filing of unintelligible and rambling documents. The respondent argued that the appellant had unduly delayed the preparation and perfection of the appeal. The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal under rules 62.23 and 62.24, arguing that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious and without merit....