Green v. Proline Management Limited, 2017 BCSC 1656

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Green v.

Proline Management Limited, 2017 BCSC 1656 Date: 20170831 Docket: 17-0524 Registry: Victoria Between: Ian Green Plaintiff And Proline Management Limited, Pemberton Holmes Limited, Devon Properties Limited, Wai Wing Mew, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of British Columbia Defendants - and - Docket: 17-0375 Registry: Victoria Between: Ian Green Plaintiff And Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada Defendants Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Adair Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers The Plaintiff Ian Green: In person Counsel for the Defendants Proline Management Limited, Pemberton Holmes Limited, and Devon Properties Limited: P.

Guy Counsel for the Defendant Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia: T. Callan S. Lacusta Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. August 29, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. August 30, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: I have before me three notices of application in two actions in which Ian Green is the plaintiff. [ 2 ] In Action No. 170375, I have an application by Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, who I will refer to as “the Province,” for the following orders: 1.

An order that the action be dismissed and the Notice of Civil Claim be struck out pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a)(

b) and (

d) without leave to apply to amend; 2. An order pursuant to

section 18 of the Supreme Court Act , that Mr. Green is a vexatious litigant and may not file additional legal proceedings without leave of the court; and

3. The Defendants are entitled to costs for this application on Scale B. [ 3 ] In Action No. 170524, I have: (

a) an application by the Province for the following orders: 1. An order that the action be dismissed and the Amended Notice of Civil Claim be struck out pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a)(

b) and (

d) without leave to apply to amend; 2. An order pursuant to

section 18 of the Supreme Court Act , that Mr. Green is a vexatious litigant and may not file additional legal proceedings without leave of the court; and 3. The Defendants are entitled to costs for this application on Scale B. (

b) an application by the defendant Devon Properties Limited for the following orders: 1. That the Plaintiff’s Notice of Civil Claim be struck out as against Devon Properties Limited, Proline Management Limited and Pemberton Holmes Limited pursuant to

section 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Rules. 2. Alternatively, an order under Rule 9-7 granting judgment pursuant to a

summary trial in favour of Devon Properties Limited, Proline Management Limited and Pemberton Holmes Limited dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against Devon Properties Limited, Proline Management Limited and Pemberton Holmes Limited, and 3. The Plaintiff’s Notice of Civil Claim be struck out, dismissed or stayed as against Devon Properties Limited, Proline Management Limited and Pemberton Holmes Limited pursuant to Rule 21-8(1)(a)(b), or alternatively 4.

The court decline jurisdiction in respect of the plaintiff's claims made against Devon Properties Limited, Proline Management Limited and Pemberton Holmes Limited pursuant to Rule 21-8(2) and the Plaintiff's action against Devon Properties Limited, Proline Management Limited and Pemberton Holmes Limited be stayed, 5. Costs, and 6.

Such further or other relief as to the court may seem just. [ 4 ] I am going to refer to the defendants named in Action No. 170524, Devon Properties Limited, Pemberton Holmes Limited and Proline Management Limited, collectively as the “Landlord Defendants.” [ 5 ] All applications are opposed by Mr. Green. [ 6 ] I am now going to set out some background. [ 7 ] Mr. Green who, as of February 2017, was 57 years old, has been unemployed and on a disability pension for some time. For a number of years, Mr. Green was a tenant in property at 1198 Esquimalt Road. His rent was paid by the Ministry of Social Services.

The landlords have been Proline, Pemberton, and, most recently, Devon. [ 8 ] In January 2010, Mr. Green entered into a tenancy agreement for a term beginning April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011. Thereafter, it was a month-to-month tenancy. Pursuant to this agreement, and I find, the agreed rent was $800 per month. I agree with Mr. Guy, counsel for the Landlord Defendants, that this agreement puts an end to the arguments made by Mr. Green that he was the victim of a previous improper rent increase. [ 9 ] In any event, in September 2016, Devon credited Mr. Green with the full amount of what Mr.

Green asserted was an illegal rent increase. [ 10 ] I turn next to Action No. 110004. [ 11 ] In January 2011, Mr. Green filed an action in B.C. Supreme Court under Action No. 110004 against Proline Management, Pemberton Holmes and Devon Properties (among others), making a variety of complaints, including an infestation of bedbugs in 2008 while Proline was landlord, and an alleged illegal rent increase (notice of which was alleged to be given by Pemberton, who took over from Proline), which Mr. Green refused to pay. [ 12 ] Mr. Green sought a variety of relief, including, and I am going to read a bit from Mr.

Green's notice of civil claim filed January 4, 2011 in Action No. 110004,

Part 2, and I am going to read, beginning with subparagraph (c):

c) THE PLAINTIFF claims unspecified damages for mental anguish over being overwhelmed by bedbugs against the defendants.

d) THE PLAINTIFF claims unspecified damages for an illegal rent increase against the defendants.

e) THE PLAINTIFF claims unspecified damages for an illegal action for unpaid rent against the defendants. [ 13 ] The legal basis was stated to be, and I am going to read from

Part 3: 1. Tort law, 2. Residential Tenancy Act of BC,

3. Criminal Code of Canada [ 14 ] In July 2013, Mr. Green filed an application in Action No. 110004 seeking to have Devon found in contempt of court, his rent reduced to $375 per month, and “top Internet service at no cost,” among other relief. The basic premise on which the application was brought was that Devon continued knowingly to charge an “illegal” rent and had attempted to exercise remedies against Mr.

Green based on non-payment of that rent. [ 15 ] In August 2013, Devon filed its own application to have the notice of civil claim in Action No. 110004 struck out or the proceedings stayed on the grounds that Mr. Green's complaints were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Board. In the result, on September 18, 2013, Mr. Justice Gaul ordered that the action be stayed. [ 16 ] I turn next to File No. 167102. [ 17 ] In November 2015, Mr.

Green swore an information under No. 167102 (and I am going to refer to that as “File 167102”) against a number of parties, the Landlord Defendants and the Province, for the purpose of commencing a private criminal prosecution. The counts number over 150. They include complaints that were the subject of Action No. 110004 (for example), alleged illegal rent increases and steps taken by Devon in relation to non-payment of rent.

In due course, Crown counsel formed the opinion that there was no substantial likelihood of conviction and intervened pursuant to Criminal Code s. 579 and s. 4(3) of the Crown Counsel Act by staying the charges brought by Mr. Green. [ 18 ] I turn next to Action No. 160481. [ 19 ] In March 2016, Mr. Green commenced BCSC Action No. 160481 against Crown counsel Jess Patterson, Crown counsel Kenneth Madsen, the Attorney General of British Columbia, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of British Columbia and the Law Society of British Columbia. The details are set out in reasons for judgment of Mr.

Justice Gaul indexed under Green v. Patterson , 2016 BCSC 1426 . In the result, on the application of the defendants other than the Law Society, Mr. Justice Gaul ordered that the claim be struck out as against those defendants as disclosing no reasonable claim and the action dismissed. [ 20 ] I turn next to the events leading up to the current proceedings. [ 21 ] As of late 2016, disagreements persisted between Mr. Green and Devon concerning the rent payable by Mr. Green, with Mr.

Green continuing to complain that the rent he was being charged was illegal, based on events that had taken place when Pemberton was the landlord. Email correspondence in which Mr. Green continued to express his views about the rent and other matters continued into January 2017. [ 22 ] In early February 2017, Devon took steps before the Residential Tenancy Board, seeking an order for possession for non- payment of rent by Mr. Green. According to Andrew McNamara, Devon's property manager, notice of a direct request proceeding was posted on Mr. Green's door on February 3, 2017. Based on email messages that Mr.

Green sent on February 3, 2017, I conclude that he in fact received the notice and took strong objection to it, continuing to assert an illegal rent increase. [ 23 ] Action No. 170375 was filed by Mr. Green on January 31, 2017. [ 24 ] Devon's application proceeded before the Residential Tenancy Board adjudicator on February 7, 2017. Mr. Green did not attend. [ 25 ] On February 9, 2017, Mr. Green filed an application in BCSC Action No. 170524 in support of an order to waive fees in proceedings filed the same day and naming the Province as the sole defendant.

The document attached to his affidavit in support of the application to waive fees purports to be a petition naming the Province as the “respondent” and seeking an order staying the order made by the Residential Tenancy Board and “any relief granted pursuant to” s. 24(2) of the Charter . In the factual basis, Mr. Green continued to assert his complaints about the illegal rent increase and how File 167102 had been dealt with. The legal basis listed the Residential Tenancy Act , the Crown Proceeding Act , the Criminal Code and the Charter . [ 26 ] An order was made declaring Mr.

Green to be indigent, although I do not have that order in the record before me. [ 27 ] In the proceedings before the Residential Tenancy Board, an order for possession was granted on February 7. That order was posted on Mr. Green's door on February 15, 2017. When Mr. Green did not vacate the premises, Devon applied to the B.C. Supreme Court for a writ of possession, which was issued on February 27, 2017. [ 28 ] Mr. Green never sought judicial review of the order for possession. Mr.

Green also never sought a stay of the writ of possession which, in any event, was executed some time ago. [ 29 ] The notice of civil claim in Action No. 170524 was filed on February 15, 2017. An amended notice of civil claim (although it was not marked in accordance with the requirements of the Rules ) was filed on April 6, 2017. [ 30 ] In his oral submissions at the hearing yesterday, Mr.

Green indicated an intention to further amend and add to the claims he has already advanced in his amended notice of civil claim in Action No. 170524, and that he had many more notices of constitutional question that he wished to file. [ 31 ] I turn then to the test for striking pleadings. [ 32 ] The applications to strike are brought relying on Rule 9-5(1)(a), (b), and (d), and I am going to paraphrase to some extent the test that is set out in Willow v. Chong , 2013 BCSC 1083 , which was one of the cases referred to me in the material that was filed on the motions yesterday.

[ 33 ] Rule 9-5(1) provides: At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that (

a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be, (

b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, . . . or (

d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs. [ 34 ] The test for striking a claim as disclosing no reasonable claim under Rule 9-5(1)(

a) is whether it is “plain and obvious,” assuming the facts pleaded are true, that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, has no reasonable prospect of success, or if the action is “certain to fail.” If there is a chance that the plaintiff might succeed, then the plaintiff should not be “driven from the judgment seat.” No evidence is admissible on an application under Rule 9-5(1)(a). [ 35 ] The rule that material facts in a notice of civil claim must be taken as true does not mean that allegations based on assumption and speculation must be taken as true.

Allegations in pleadings should not be weighed as to their truth, but it is not fundamentally wrong to look behind allegations in some cases, and it may be appropriate to subject the allegations in the pleadings to a skeptical analysis. [ 36 ] Under Rule 9-5(1)(b), a pleading is unnecessary or vexatious if it does not go to establishing the plaintiff’s cause of action, if it does not advance any claim known in law, where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or where it would serve no useful purpose and would be a waste of the court’s time and public resources.

If a pleading is so confusing that it is difficult to understand what is pleaded, it may also be unnecessary, frivolous, or vexatious. An application under this subrule may be supported by evidence. [ 37 ] Abuse of process under Rule 9-5(1)(

d) or the court's inherent jurisdiction is a flexible doctrine. It allows the court to prevent a claim from proceeding where to do so would violate principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice. A claim may be struck where it is a collateral attack on an administrative decision that is subject to appeal or judicial review.

A claim may also be struck as an abuse of process where it is an attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been decided. [ 38 ] It is well established that a plaintiff has an obligation to clearly plead the material facts on which the plaintiff relies in making the claim. Pleadings must enable the court, within a reasonable time and review of the pleading, to find the cause of action and the material facts on which the cause of action is based. It is not for the court to articulate for a litigant a comprehensible and legally recognizable cause of action.

Pleadings that do not meet these minimum requirements fail to satisfy the requirements of the Rules and are an abuse of the court's process. [ 39 ] I turn then to the application in Action No. 170375, to consider first whether the notice of civil claim in that action should be struck. [ 40 ] The claims advanced in this action are a combination of complaints about the administration of an estate alleged to belong to Mr. Green's sister, and then continued complaints about the handling of the private information sworn by Mr. Green under File 167102.

Although there are two named defendants, the Province and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, there are in fact no allegations of fact made in relation to the Queen in Right of Canada. [ 41 ] The matters relating to File 167102 were determined by Mr. Justice Gaul in the order made in 2016 in Action No. 160841. Mr. Green's attempt to raise these issues again in this action amounts to a collateral attack and is an abuse of process. [ 42 ] Any claims relating to the handling of an estate by the Public Guardian and Trustee must be made against the Public Guardian and Trustee and not the Province.

This follows as a result of s. 2 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and s. 3(2)(

d) of the Crown Proceedings Act . It is therefore plain and obvious that the facts alleged in the notice of civil claim fail to state any reasonable claim against any named defendant. [ 43 ] I conclude, therefore, that the notice of civil claim in Action No. 170375 must be struck out and the claim is dismissed. [ 44 ] I turn then to Action No. 170524. [ 45 ] The amended notice of civil claim in this action combines a number of different complaints in 34 sections (with multiple paragraphs) in

Part 1, Statement of Facts. For example, Mr. Green again makes allegations about the bedbug problem at his residence when Proline was landlord and about the alleged illegal rent increases in which he asserts Pemberton and Devon were involved. He makes allegations about File 167102 and the manner in which the complaints in his private prosecution were handled. He makes allegations concerning how matters were dealt with by Devon and the Residential Tenancy Board in February of 2017.

There are general complaints about substandard housing, the Residential Tenancy Branch, homelessness, the “Rule of 72,” and a number of other matters. [ 46 ] The relief sought in the amended notice of civil claim is (and I am going to read from

Part 2): 1. Court Order to refile criminal proceedings against any known violations. 2. Pecuniary damages for intentional forcible homelessness caused by Devon Properties.

3. Court Order to stay Residential Tenancy Branch file 589269. 4. Restitution of an affordable residence for the plaintiff. 5. Shelter rate for all classes of disability to be tripled. 6. 1,500 additional housing units to be assigned to BC Housing for Victoria, BC. 7. 500 specialized housing units for drug addicts who have known mental health issues. 8. 500 specialized housing units for alcoholics who have known mental health issues. 9. An additional 500 housing units to be added each year. 10. Rent increases to be abolished. 11. Other charter violations to be corrected pro re nata. 12.

Additional pecuniary sanction for obstructing a legal proceeding. 13. Additional pecuniary sanction for prejudice against a person with disability. 14. Any other sanction as granted by the 24(1) of the Charter. 15. Treble damages for legal prejudice against the plaintiff. [ 47 ] In the relief sought, the defendants are not distinguished from one another in any way but are all lumped together. [ 48 ] The relief sought in paragraphs 1 and 12 amount to a collateral attack on the order made by Mr. Justice Gaul in 2016. As such, they are an abuse of process. [ 49 ] The orders sought in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of

Part 2 relate to the proceedings earlier in 2017 before the Residential Tenancy Board. They might be the subject of a judicial review application, but in this action they are an impermissible collateral attack on the decision of the Residential Tenancy Board. Moreover, they have nothing to do with the Province. They also have nothing to do with either Proline or Pemberton, who had long since ceased involvement with Mr. Green's residence.

In that light, the claims are vexatious and an abuse of process. [ 50 ] The remaining relief sought might be the subject of a political campaign, but they are not orders that can be made in this action against the named defendants based on the facts alleged by Mr. Green. [ 51 ] Moreover, and acknowledging that Mr. Green is a self-represented litigant, I would describe the amended notice of civil claim as prolix and confusing, making it difficult, if not impossible, for a defendant to understand the claims being made against it and the case to be made out.

The amended notice of civil claim fails therefore to fulfil the function of a pleading, and it is an abuse of the court's process. [ 52 ] Accordingly, I conclude that the amended notice of civil claim must be struck out. I would not grant leave to amend. Mr. Green has already amended the notice of civil claim once, but it was to add complexity to an already deficient document. He has already demonstrated that there are issues he is not prepared to leave in the past, such as his complaints about File 167102 and his dealings with Proline and Pemberton. I do not see any justification for allowing Mr.

Green to continue to vex the defendants in this way. The action is therefore dismissed. [ 53 ] In view of that conclusion, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the Landlord Defendants’ alternative claims for relief, being the dismissal on a

summary trial, or, alternatively, a stay on the grounds that the Residential Tenancy Board has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into all of the matters relating to the tenant and landlord relationship between Mr. Green and these defendants. I will therefore say little about those alternative claims. [ 54 ] However, the evidentiary record before me supports the conclusion that Mr. Green’s continued assertions that he was charged an illegal rent by Pemberton and Devon are without merit. On the evidence, in January 2010, Mr. Green signed a new tenancy agreement effective April 2010, setting the rent to be charged.

In addition, I agree with Mr. Guy’s submissions that the complaints about Proline and Pemberton would, at this stage, be statute barred. I also agree with Mr. Guy that, as was the case with Action No. 110004, a stay would be justified on the basis that the matters raised are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Board. [ 55 ] I turn then to the applications in each action by the Province to have Mr. Green declared to be a vexatious litigant. [ 56 ] The Province seeks to have Mr.

Green declared a vexatious litigant and an order made that he may not file additional legal proceedings without leave of the court. The Landlord Defendants did not make any separate application. However, they supported the orders sought by the Province. [ 57 ] Mr. Green opposed any such orders being made. [ 58 ]

Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act provides: If, on application by any person, the court is satisfied that a person has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds, instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the Provincial Court against the same or different persons, the court may, after hearing that person or giving him or her an opportunity to be heard, order that a legal proceeding must not, without leave of the court, be

instituted by that person in any court. [ 59 ] The following non-exhaustive factors, set out, for example, in Bryfogle v. School District No. 49 , 2007 BCSC 457 , at para. 62 , are regularly relied on in applications that are brought to declare a person a vexatious litigant: (

a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding; (

b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious; (

c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; (

d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings; (

e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action; (

f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious; (

g) the respondent’s conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings. [ 60 ] The s. 18 remedy is a serious limitation that must be exercised with caution and due regard to the rights of every person to access to justice, but it is not Draconian in the sense that it precludes access to the courts. It is a limit that should not be avoided when it is necessary in the public interest to prevent habitual serious abuse of the process of the courts. [ 61 ] The Province argues that this test clearly applies to the situation at hand.

The Province says the record shows that Mr. Green has commenced a private prosecution (File 167102) regarding the same issues and filed three notices of civil claim against the Province. He has also previously sued his landlords related to the same basic issues. The Province says that, despite his lack of success in the past, Mr. Green continues raising the same arguments and issues. In the Province's submission, he meets the test for a vexatious litigant and should be prohibited from filing further notices of civil claim without leave of the court. [ 62 ] I would say that Mr.

Green is passionate about and very frustrated at not only his personal circumstances as a disabled person on a fixed income who struggles very much to avoid homelessness, but also the lack of social housing and support (among other things) for individuals who are in similar circumstances (or even worse). His feelings come through strongly in the materials that he has filed with the court and in his oral submissions. [ 63 ] However, his statements yesterday to the effect that, for example, he had many more notices of constitutional question that he intended to file, were alarming.

This kind of unrestrained, obsessive behaviour, including constant attendance at court registry to file documents, is a sign of a vexatious litigant. It places a serious and unfair burden on court staff, who are there to serve all members of the public. There is a point at which the behaviour becomes abusive, and appropriate steps must be taken to control it. Continuing to engage in such behaviour would be a dangerous path for Mr.

Green to follow, as he already exhibits some of the other signs of a vexatious litigant. [ 64 ] However, I note that there was a significant gap (about two years) between the order made by Mr. Justice Gaul in Action No. 110004 and the private prosecution in File 167102. Mr. Green's stubborn and ultimately futile persistence in maintaining his claims about illegal rent was a factor in the steps taken by Devon before the Residential Tenancy Board in February 2017 and the loss by Mr. Green of his home. Although Mr.

Green has to accept responsibility for the consequences of his own actions, the sudden loss of one's home is an extremely stressful event. I am prepared to take that into account when considering whether I should find Mr. Green to be a vexatious litigant. Although the proceedings that I have struck out are vexatious, it does not necessarily follow that Mr. Green is, at this point, a vexatious litigant. [ 65 ] Mr. Green demonstrates many of the features of a vexatious litigant.

However, I have not been persuaded that matters have reached the stage where I am satisfied that he will not be deterred from bringing vexatious litigation in the future, even though I have struck out Actions No. 170375 and No. 170524. I will say to Mr. Green that that stage will very soon be reached, if you, Mr. Green, after delivery of these reasons, persist in pursuing similar claims to those described in the notices of civil claim that I have struck out against either the Province or your former landlords. So this, in a sense, is a warning, and you should take it as essentially a final warning.

If you persist in behaviour that has the hallmarks of a vexatious litigant, you are likely to be found to be a vexatious litigant and an order will be made accordingly. So you have, essentially, one last chance to modify your behaviour. [ 66 ] Accordingly, the Province's application for the s. 18 order is dismissed. [ 67 ] In

summary, regarding the Province’s notice of application in Action No. 170375, the notice of civil claim is struck without leave to amend, and the action is dismissed, and the application for an order under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act to have Mr. Green declared a vexatious litigant is dismissed. [ 68 ] With respect to the Province's notice of application in Action No. 170524, the amended notice of civil claim is struck out without leave to amend, and the action is dismissed as against the Province. The application for an order under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act is dismissed.

[ 69 ] Finally, with respect to Devon's amended notice of application in Action No. 170524, the amended notice of civil claim is struck out without leave to amend, and the action is dismissed. [ 70 ] That concludes my reasons. [ 71 ] MR. GUY: My Lady, could Mr. Green's approval of the form of order be dispensed with? [ 72 ] THE COURT: All right. Mr. Green, I am going to dispense with your approval as to the forms of the orders that I have pronounced today. I am going to direct that -- who will take responsibility for preparation of the orders? [ 73 ] MS.

CALLAN: My Lady, I can. [ 74 ] THE COURT: All right, is that Ms. Callan? [ 75 ] MS. CALLAN: That is correct. [ 76 ] THE COURT: All right. Ms. Callan will have the responsibility for preparation of the forms of order, and Ms. Callan, when the orders are submitted to the Registry, they should be directed to my attention. I will review the forms of order to ensure that they are in accordance with the orders that I have made today and, assuming that they are, I will sign them accordingly and the orders can be entered. [ 77 ] Ms.

Callan, when you are submitting the order to the Registry, you should also send a copy of what you are submitting to Mr. Green. [ 78 ] MS. CALLAN: I will. “E.J. Adair, J.” The Honourable Madam Justice Adair