R. v. Summers, 2021 BCPC 233

Citation: R. v. Summers 2021 BCPC 233 Date: 20210929 File Nos: 23017-1, 23018-1, 23019-1, 23020-1, 23021, 23022-1 Registry: Rossland IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CHRISTOPHER JOHN SUMMERS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C.D. SICOTTE Counsel for the Crown: Mr. Neil Wiberg Appearing on his own behalf: Mr. Christopher Summers Place of Hearing: Rossland , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 1, 2021 Date of Judgment: September 29, 2021 [ 1 ] On May 28, 2021 Christopher Summers, at the Rossland Provincial Court Registry swore out 6 private Informations under s.

504 of the Criminal Code of Canada. When the procedures in that

section are followed, the court registry must accept the Informations. INTRODUCTION [2] In British Columbia, a hearing is then scheduled before a Provincial Court Judge to hear evidence from the informant or otherwitnesses in support of the criminal charges.

The judge must then decide whether the evidence supports the criminal allegationssufficiently to issue process to bring the accused persons before the court to answer to the criminal charges. [3] In most cases, Crown Counsel can take charge of the prosecution of these charges at any point and either continue theprosecution or direct a stay of proceedings essentially terminating the prosecution of the charges. [4] With respect to Mr. Summers’ Informations sworn May 28, 2021, Crown Counsel directed stays of proceedings on all thecharges at the beginning of the process hearing. [5] Prior to that, Mr.

Summers had posted on his Facebook page June 10, 2021 the following comment: 6 private informations accepted into process hearing as if today. Charging rcmp officers and judges for obstructing justice, making falseaccusations and statements about me, kidnapping my children from my care against their will repeatedly… If any of these are stayed… I am filing private informations charging the Crown Counsel with obstructing justice [SIC] [6] At the time Crown Counsel directed stays of proceeding, they also brought an application before the court seeking to haverestrictions placed on Mr.

Summers’ ability to swear out private Informations in the future. That application was adjourned to give Mr.Summers time to prepare and it came on for argument before me on September 1, 2021. [7] Crown Counsel relies on the common law and the inherent jurisdiction of this court to control its own processes. The also relyon a previous decision of mine, Re Timothy Lee Felger, 2020 BCPC 221 , 2020 B.C.P.C. 221. [8] Mr. Summers sought to distinguish himself from Mr. Felger and provided both written and oral arguments justifying his layingof private Informations and opposing any restrictions on his right to do so.

JURISDICTION [9] I will not repeat my considerations from Felger, but adopt verbatim my reasoning in paragraphs 12 – 21 therein and myconclusion that this court does have inherent jurisdiction to restrict access to the court by individuals found to be abusive or vexatious. [10] On August 30, 2021 Associate Chief Judge Dohm also confirmed this court’s inherent jurisdiction to restrain the abusive layingof private Informations in Re Zsuzsanna Holland, Williams Lake file 37253-2.

Ms Holland had laid over 20 private Informations in twoyears and then a further 25 Informations in one week. [11] My conclusion on this point in Felger is further supported by the comments of Rothstein J writing for the Supreme Court ofCanada in R v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10 , 2010 S.C.C. 10 at para. 19 stating: Likewise in the case of statutory courts, the authority to control the court's process and oversee the conduct of counsel is necessarilyimplied in the grant of power to function as a court of law.

This Court has affirmed that courts can apply a "doctrine of jurisdiction bynecessary implication" when determining the powers of a statutory tribunal: ... the powers conferred by an enabling statute are construed to include not only those expressly granted but also, by implication, allpowers which are practically necessary for the accomplishment of the object intended to be secured by the statutory regime ... . (ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v.

Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140, at para. 51) Although Bastarache J. was referring to an administrative tribunal, the same rule of jurisdiction, by necessary implication, would apply tostatutory courts. BEHAVIOUR [12] Crown Counsel submits that Mr. Summers’ swearing of 23 private Informations over the past two years clearly meets thedefinition of abusive or vexatious. [13] Mr. Summers since 2017 has been involved in protracted family litigation with his ex-wife and her new partner. Mr.

Summersbelieves that his three children are in some fashion being mistreated in the care of his ex-wife. He has made repeated allegations infamily court, to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to the R.C.M.P. and to Nelson City Police as well as others. [14] When Mr. Summers perceives that an injustice has been done, he pursues every possible avenue of redress. He has appealedMCFD decisions all the way to the Minister.

He and his current partner, A.M., have filed numerous complaints about the police with theCivilian Review and Public Complaints Commission where 36 of their complaints are still outstanding. The Commission has written toMr. Summers and A.M. asking them not to file any further complaints until the Commission catches up with the outstanding issues. [15] Mr. Summers telephones the Staff Sgt. of the South-East District E Division of the R.C.M.P. often multiple times per day.

He haslaid numerous private Informations charging not only his ex-wife and her current partner with various offences, but multiple policeofficers, social workers and at least one judge with criminal charges such as obstruction of justice, public mischief and perjury.

[ 16 ] Mr. Summers is clear in both his written and oral submissions that his resorting to swearing private Informations is a response to his not receiving what he perceives to be a just result from the courts or government organizations including the police, Crown Counsel and the Director of Child and Family Services. [ 17 ] I can summarize his position by quoting some excerpts from his written submissions. [ 18 ] In paragraph 10(

e) he writes: The history of this matter speaks for the obstruction of Justice. Denial of RCMP, MCFD and court services to protect myself and my children from people committing crimes against us. And abusing us – repeatedly. It shows the bias, prejudice and misconduct of professionals, leaving me with no other option than to swear private informations. [SIC] [ 19 ] In paragraph 8 he writes: Since that time, almost every private information has been stayed by crown counsel, obstructing my ability to have evidence (disregarded by RCMP, MCFD) to the courts. To have the Laws applied to the people committing crimes against myself and my family. [SIC] [ 20 ] In his

summary he writes: I further believe this is part of a “criminal” “concert” of RCMP officers, MCFD social workers and crown counsel with Ms [M] and her associates to continue to disregard the “Facts” of the matters concerning myself and my families safety and protection. [SIC] [ 21 ] I turn then to address some of the Informations that Mr. Summers has sworn. On Nelson Information 26368 Mr. Summers alleged that Ms. [M] committed assault, obstruction of justice and fabrication of evidence at various times from 2015 to 2019. Judge Guild considered the process application and declined to issue process.

He made an order dated February 5, 2020 stating in part, “…this application is an abuse of the Court’s process to attempt to re-litigate the same facts;” [ 22 ] On four other occasions Mr. Summers has sworn out private Informations against Ms. [M] charging her with amongst other things, assault, uttering threats, public mischief, obstruction of justice and perjury. [ 23 ] Mr. Summers has charged Ms. [M’s] current partner with assault, uttering threats, obstruction of justice and public mischief. [ 24 ] Mr.

Summers has charged five different police officers with amongst other things, assault, assault causing bodily harm, obstruction of justice, public mischief and perjury. [ 25 ] Mr. Summers has charged six different social workers with charges such as public mischief, obstruction of justice, fabricating evidence and perjury. [ 26 ] Mr. Summers has also charged at least one judge with obstructing justice, fabricating evidence and public mischief. Crown Counsel has alleged that Mr.

Summers laid charges against two other judges but that has not been substantiated. [ 27 ] As simply one example of how things arose, the police were called to have Mr. Summers removed from an MCFD office where a loud argument was taking place. After the police escorted Mr. Summers from the office, he swore out criminal charges against the social worker and the police officer involved in the incident. [ 28 ] Mr. Summers posts on social media his complaints against various parties and the fact that he has sworn out criminal charges against them.

The charges do not proceed as Crown Counsel directs stays of proceedings. [ 29 ] Some of the charges sworn by Mr. Summers are completely nonsensical. For example, on Information 23022 his charge of a Judge over a four year period is worded as follows, “…did Fabricate Evidence with intent to mislead evidence to be used in a judicial proceeding against Christopher Summers…” On Information 23021 Mr. Summers used the exact same wording to criminally charge a social worker over the same four year period. [ 30 ] Of all the Informations sworn by Mr.

Summers, one Information that I am aware of, 22356, did actually result in a

section 810 Peace Bond being imposed on Ms. [M]. However, after hearing full evidence from Mr. Summers, Judge Guild stated that it was equally likely that Mr. Summers would also instigate further breaches of the peace. Over the objections of Mr. Summers, he too was placed on a Peace Bond for one year. [ 31 ] I have no hesitation in concluding that Mr. Summers is abusing the process of swearing out private Informations. His behaviour is consistent with that of a vexatious litigant. [ 32 ] The right under the criminal code for individuals to swear out private Informations is not unfettered.

If exercised in an abusive or vexatious fashion the court will have no alternative but to impose controls on the individual to protect the court’s processes. ORDER [ 33 ] Therefore, I order as follows: 1. Neither Christopher John Summers nor anyone acting on his behalf shall swear or attempt to swear any private Information in any registry of the Provincial Court of British Columbia unless that Information contains verifiable certification on the bottom confirming that it was drafted by a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia. 2.

Registry staff in the registries of the Provincial Court of British Columbia are authorized to discard any document that is attempted to be sworn in contravention of this order.

3. Christopher John Summers will not present evidence at any Process Hearing in British Columbia unless, at that hearing, he is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia. 4. Christopher John Summers may apply to vary this order provided the application is filed by and spoken to by a member in good standing of The Law Society of British Columbia. ____________________________ C.D. Sicotte Provincial Court Judge