MICHAEL ROGERS , Plaintiff, - v. –, 2023 NBKB 6

IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON Michael Rogers v. Dustin Caissie et al. 2023 NBKB 006 MC-608-2022 2023/01/20 BETWEEN: MICHAEL ROGERS , Plaintiff, - and – DUSTIN CAISSIE and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK Defendants, DECISION BEFORE: Chief Justice Tracey K. DeWare AT: Moncton, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: December 22, 2022 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2023 APPEARANCES: Jason T. Dempsey, on behalf of the Applicant Jean-Pierre LeBlanc, on behalf of the Attorney General of the Province of New Brunswick Michael Rogers, did not appear

DeWare, C.J. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This decision is in response to the Defendant, Dustin Caissie’s, motion seeking

summary judgement against the Plaintiff, Michael Rogers, as well as an order that the Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. The Court grants the Defendant’s requests in their entirety for the reasons that follow. FACTS [ 2 ] Mr. Rogers filed a Notice of Action against solicitor, Dustin Cassie, on October 17, 2022. This action is one amongst a multitude of legal proceedings that Mr. Rogers has filed in the judicial District of Moncton over the course of the last three years. Between April 16, 2019 and November 16, 2022, Mr.

Rogers filed or attempted to file 63 actions or applications in the Judicial District of Moncton. In reviewing these filings, court staff have identified that 47 were filed against administrative officials, a judge, lawyers or members of an administrative tribunal. The specifics of these particular matters are set out in Matthieu Leger’s affidavit of December 13, 2022 as follows: 16. Of the sixty-three (63) actions and applications that Mr.

Rogers filed or attempted to file between April 16, 2019 and November 16, 2022, a total of forty-seven (47) actions or applications were filed against administrative officials, a judge, a tribunal and lawyers, and whose names are italicised in the following table: Court Matter Defendant(

s) Position/Occupation MC-483-2019 Monique M. Richard Susan Branscombe (R1) Supervisor, Dept. of Social Development of NB Horizon Health Network MC-498-2019 Jennifer Kerry Social worker, Dept. of Social Development of NB MC-88-2020 Ed McGrath, McGrath/Boyd, Rene LeBlanc and Rob Boyd Lawyers and law firm in Moncton, NB

MC-161-2021 707600 New Brunswick Inc., K2 Management Properties, Sarah Rose Short, Lena Josephine Jerabek, James Ryan Merinuk, 12550164 Canada Inc., Paige Everill, Residential Tenancies Tribunal Steve Gourdeau “AB” Sylvie Godin-Blanchard Tribunal Deputy Chief, Residential Tenancies Officer Case Management, Administrative Assistance, Residential Tenancies Tribunal Crown Prosecutor MM-44-2021 707600 New Brunswick Inc., K2 Management Properties, Sarah Rose Short, Lena Josephine Jerabek, James Ryan Merinuk, 12550164 Canada Inc., Paige Everill, Residential Tenancies Tribunal Steve Gourdeau “AB” Sylvie Godin-Blanchard Tribunal Deputy Chief, Residential Tenancies Officer Case Management, Administrative Assistance, Residential Tenancies Tribunal Crown Prosecutor

MM-45-2021 Hon. Minister Bruce Fitch Wil Annie Minister, Government of NB Unknown Unknown MM-53-2021 Erin Doucette Steve Gourdeau Residential Tenancies Officer with NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal Deputy Chief Residential Tenancies Officer with NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal MM-58-2021 Residential Tenancies Tribunal et al.

Steve Gourdeau Erin Doucette Tribunal Deputy Chief Residential Tenancies Officer Residential Tenancies Officer with NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal MM-60-2021 Erin Doucette Michael Melanson Residential Tenancies Tribunal Steve Gourdeau Residential Tenancies Officer with NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal Residential Tenancies Tribunal / Service NB Tribunal Deputy Chief Residential Tenancies Officer MC-739-2021 Dawn Arnold Mayor City of Moncton MC-740-2021 Andrea Anderson-Mason MLA in New Brunswick MC-741-2021 Brian Barnett Lawyer, Office of Attorney General of New Brunswick MC-742-2021 Anne Bourque NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal MC-743-2021 Tiffany Wilkie Dept. of Social Development MC-744-2021 Julie Lemieux-Blaquiere Dept. of Social Development MC-745-2021 Mary Wilson Minister, Government of New Brunswick MC-746-2021 Jennifer Gallant Dept. of Social Development MC-747-2021 Jennifer Kerry (2 nd action) Dept. of Social Development

MC-748-2021 Janie Godin Dept. of Social Development MC-749-2021 Karine Chapleau Dept. of Social Development MC-751-2021 Benoit Bourque MLA in New Brunswick MC-752-2021 Susan Branscombe Dept. of Social Development MC-753-2021 Michel Leblanc Regional Direction, Crown Prosecutors Office, Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of New Brunswick MC-754-2021 Robert Goguen Lawyer and former Member of Parliament MC-755-2021 Ginette Petitpas Taylor Federal Minister and current Member of Parliament for Moncton-Riverview- Dieppe for Moncton, Riverview-Dieppe MC-756-2021 Bruce Fitch Minister, Government of New Brunswick MC-759-2021 Erin Doucette NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal MC-761-2021 Tania Davies VP Technology Services, Service New Brunswick MC-762-2021 Susan Campbell Dept. of Social Development MC-763-2021 Sylvie Godin-Blanchard Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecutors Office, Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of New Brunswick MC-764-2021 Greg Turner MLA in New Brunswick MC-765-2021 Larry Tremblay Retired RCMP "J" Division Commander MC-767-2021 Dorothy Shepard Minister, Government of New Brunswick MC-772-2021 Manuel Reyes Former employee with Horizon Health Network MC-773-2021 Charles Murray Former Ombud of New Brunswick, current Commissioner at Office of the Integrity Commissioner of NB MC-774-2021 Michael Melanson Residential Tenancies Tribunal / Service NB MC-775-2021 Malika Levesque Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecutors Office, Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of New Brunswick MC-777-2021 Steve Gourdeau NB Residential Tenancies Tribunal MC-778-2021 Chantal Moreau Clerk of the Court of King's Bench of NB, Judicial District of Moncton MC-779-2021 Sarah Hebert Manager, Clerk's Office (Moncton), Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of NB MC-780-2021 Denise A.

LeBlanc Justice of the Court of Appeal of NB MC-361-2022 Sarah Hebert Manager, Clerk's Office (Moncton), Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of NB

MC-362-2022 Lucie Dubois Regional Director, Court Services Moncton and Miramichi, Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of NB MC-363-2022 Michel Boudreau and two subordinates Director of Sheriff Services, Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of NB MC-364-2022 Michel Leblanc Regional Director of Public Prosecutions, Crown Prosecutors Office, Dept. of Justice and Public Safety of NB MC-608-2022 Dustin Caissie Lawyer MC-680-2022 Dustin "Dumble Dee" Caissie Lawyer [ 3 ] Mr. Caissie summarizes the allegations made against him in the present proceedings in his affidavit dated October 27, 2022. In particular, Mr.

Caissie notes at paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 the following: Pleadings (…) 3. The statement of claim includes the following accusations:

a) That I am part of a cadre of corrupt and lawless individuals, that I am a criminal conspirator, a rogue activist, pseudo-official, and that I have acted in a manner that may co-opt the levers of public service.

b) That I am a trafficker in human lives.

c) That I am a subversive criminal.

d) That I am an agent of chaos, mayhem and disorder. Background 5. Starting at page 5 of the Statement of Claim under the heading Grounds to be Argued, Mr. Rogers makes the following claims:

a) That he was held in custody for a period of time until August 3, 2022. There were 10 other prisoners who appeared on the provincial court docket with him that day.

b) That Judge Duffie was presiding over the court.

c) That witnesses in the gallery observed and recorded me in the courtroom. I was allegedly “declaring, cajoling, leering and snickering over the ‘gambling’ of prisoners appearing that day at one hundred dollars per prisoner.” [sic]. The “game”, according to Mr. Rogers, was a bet, or series of bets, as to which prisoners might be released.

d) That the two unnamed witnesses observed other lawyers, some of whom were aware and participatory, others who were unaware but keen to engage.

e) That, as a consequence, I have violated sections of the criminal code dealing with disorderly houses, gaming and betting, etc. Mr. Rogers alleges that Judge Duffie was complicit in the criminal activity as alleged.

f) That because of the “disorderly house” the prisoners were held captive without trial resulting in Mr. Rogers alleging that Judge Duffie and I are guilty of kidnapping, and possibly human trafficking. 6. Starting at page 9 of the Statement of Claim under the heading Affidavit of Michael Harold Rogers, Mr. Rogers makes allegations I would summarize as follows:

a) That I, who he identified as Dustin “Dumble-Dee” Caissie, am an administrative operative of “establishment terrorism” as coordinated by “Hugh (Terrible Teddy) Flemming”.

b) That myself and others are responsible for the first degree murder of William Blankship Jr. of Ohio.

c) That myself and others are attempting to cause the death by suicide of Felisha Dawn Gauche through actions sanctioned by the Courts.

[ 4 ] In the Notice of Motion dated October 28, 2022, Mr. Caissie seeks the following relief:

a) The Defendant, and Moving Party, Dustin Caissie be granted

summary judgment against the Plaintiff (Responding Party), Michael Rogers, pursuant to Rules 22.01(2) 22.04 of the Rules of Court , on the grounds that there is no merit to one or more of the claims set out within the Statement of Claim and that there are no genuine issues requiring trial with respect to the claim(s).

b) That, in the alternative, the Court strike out the Notice of Action and Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff without leave to amend pursuant to Rules 27.09 and 76.1.04 of the Rules of Court on the just ground that: it is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious; it is an abuse of the process of the Court, and it is not conformity with the Rules of Court .

c) That the Court prohibit the Plaintiff Michael Rogers from commencing any further proceeding in the Court of King’s Bench, and prohibiting him from continuing the present proceeding without further leave of the Court pursuant to Rule 76.1.02 of the Rules of Court .

d) The Court award costs against the Plaintiff, Michael Rogers, on a Solicitor-Client basis pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of Court . ISSUES [ 5 ] The issues to be resolved in the following matter are the following: 1) is Mr. Caissie entitled to

summary judgement?; 2) should the Notice of Action, with Statement of Claim attached, be struck on the ground that it is frivolous and vexatious?; 3) should Mr. Rogers be declared a vexatious litigant? and; 4) Costs. LAW AND ANALYSIS [ 6 ] Mr. Rogers was personally served with the Notice of Motion and affidavit in support as well as the prehearing briefs. Mr. Rogers filed no responding documents and did not appear on the hearing of the motion. The court delayed the commencement of the hearing in order to accommodate Mr. Rogers in the event that he was simply running late but still he did not appear.

At the conclusion of the motion, Mr. Rogers still had not presented himself at the court nor reached out to court staff to advise that he was unable to attend. I am of the view that Mr. Rogers was fully aware that this motion was proceeding and chose not to participate. [ 7 ] Mr. Rogers is not new to

summary judgement motions. Given the several frivolous pleadings he has filed with the court, there have been motions for

summary judgement granted in favour of some of the Defendants named. On December 31, 2021, in Rogers v. 707600 NB Inc. et al , 2021 NBQB 271 , I granted

summary judgement to several Defendants in action MC- 161-2021. In granting

summary judgement in that particular matter, I noted at paragraphs 27 and 28 as follows: [27] In

summary, I am satisfied that the moving parties are entitled to relief pursuant to their primary and alternative grounds set out in their notice of motion. The arguments raised by Mr. Rogers in opposition to the motion were not related to the motion itself but consisted of suggestions of ongoing malfeasance he alleges to be suffering at the hands of various individuals including all the defendants named in this action. Regrettably, Mr. Rogers clearly does not understand the role of a civil action nor the limits of a court in allowing non-merit-based claims to proceed. While this court is sympathetic to Mr.

Rogers’ perceived legal challenges, the court must control its process and cannot allow individuals to prosecute claims that are devoid of merit. Mr. Rogers’ pursuit of these ill-construed legal actions only serve to prolong the grief he attributes to his relationships with the various defendants, while imposing significant legal fees and stress on individuals who should not be named as defendants in an action without merit. [28] Mr. Rogers has consumed precious time and resources from the court docket which is desperately needed for litigants who are pursuing legitimate claims that are valid at law.

I wish I had a solution to offer Mr. Rogers for his various difficulties; however, these solutions cannot be found in the civil justice system as controlled by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench. [Emphasis mine] [ 8 ] It is clear that Mr. Rogers has learned absolutely nothing from his experience in the above-noted action. The Notice of Action filed against Mr. Caissie was presented in the fall of 2022. Mr. Rogers continues to use the court system as a means to voice complaints against individuals and entities for which he has real or perceived grievances. This is not the role of the courts.

As I stated in the earlier decision, Mr. Rogers cannot use the courts as a means to voice complaints or settle scores, real or imagined.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT [ 9 ] Rule 22.01(3) and 22.04(1) of the New Brunswick Rules of Court provide as follows: 22.01 Where Available To Defendant

(3) After the defendant has served a Statement of Defence, the defendant may move with supporting affidavit or other evidence for

summary judgment dismissing all or part of the claim in the Statement of Claim. 22.04 Disposition of Motion General

(1) The court shall grant

summary judgment if (

a) the court is satisfied there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence, or (

b) the parties agree to have all or part of the claim determined by a

summary judgment and the court is satisfied it is appropriate to grant

summary judgment. [Emphasis mine] [ 10 ] The appropriateness of an order for

summary judgement in this case is easily made out. A review of the first two paragraphs of Mr. Rogers purported Statement of Claim speak for themselves: 1. APLICANT: i. MICHAEL HAROLD ROGERS - private citizen, Non-Active Status member and Non-Commissioned Officer of Her Majesty's Canadian Forces. ii. Independent author, publisher & editor. iii. Private litigator and prosecutor in Her Majesty's County of Westmorland in the Province of New Brunswick. iv.

Victim of state abuse and torture. [Editor's Notes - MICHAEL is a qualified and perfectly proficient horticulturalist, botanist and amateur Mygalo-Maniac© who specializes in "NO-FUCKS" cultivation. 2. RESPONDENT: i. DUSTIN CAISSIE is a private attorney from the region of Moncton New Brunswick. ii. DUSTIN CAISSIE is a property manager, owner and developer in the region and also is involved in the ownership and operation of a family furniture liquidation enterprise. iii.

DUSTIN CAISSIE is part of a cadre of corrupt and lawless individuals that are part of the institution of law and order in the jurisdiction of Westmorland and along with other members of the NEW BRUNSWICK LAW SOCIETY; is part of a criminally conspiratorial group of rogue, activist, "pseudo-Officials" who have harnessed and co-opted the levers of public services and its delivery mechanisms in Her Majesty's County of Westmorland. iv. DUSTIN CAISSIE is a TRAFFICKER IN HUMAN LIVES - THE VERY LIVES HE WAS TASKED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS CORPORATION WITH DEFENDING. v.

DUSTIN CAISSIE is a subversive criminal With access, network, COillieetiOri and society here in New Brunswick where; among other activists, he operates in collusive and conspiratorial ways with such like-minded and similarly motivated "operators" who are placed throughout other bureaucracies and who, by design and legislation were meant to be independent. vi.

DUSTIN CAISSIE is a facilitator, an operator, an agent of chaos, mayhem and disorder that exists and is maintained by the "QB COMMUNITY" of Her Majesty's Westmorland in support of the tactics, relationships, mechanisms, obstacles and barriers to the publics access to justice while at the same time acting or failing to act maliciously against his own charges under the law while he and others in the "QB COMMUNITY" of Westmorland simultaneously wield the force of the State against the vulnerable, the indigent, the victimized along with any who complain, dissent or demonstrate outrage at this institutional treason and betrayal of the citizens and the families here. [ 11 ] The comments in Mr.

Rogers’ purported pleading have no place in our court system and further discussion of this meritless foolishness is not warranted nor will it be further entertained by this Court. [ 12 ] There is no doubt in the mind of the Court what the ultimate conclusion would be should this matter proceed to trial. Mr. Caissie is granted

summary judgement. There is also no doubt but that the pleading is frivolous, vexatious and without merit. Mr. Rogers’ action is also struck pursuant to Rule 27.0 9(

b) as it is clearly improper and discloses no cause of action. VEXATIOUS LITIGANT [ 13 ] Rule 76.1.02(1) of the New Brunswick Rules of Court states as follows:

76.1.02 Order made by a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench

(1) Where a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench is satisfied, on application, that a person has persistently and without reasonablegrounds commenced vexatious proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court or has persistently and withoutreasonable grounds conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court, the judgemay make an order containing either or both of the following prohibitions: (

a) prohibiting the person from commencing any further proceeding in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court exceptwith leave of a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench; and (

b) prohibiting the person from continuing a proceeding previously commenced in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Small ClaimsCourt except with leave of a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench. [14] As required, pursuant to Rule 76.1, Mr. Caissie did serve his Notice of Application seeking the order to have Mr. Rogers declareda vexatious litigant on the Attorney General of New Brunswick. The Attorney General appeared at the hearing of the motion and arguedin support of Mr. Caissie’s application. [15] The leading case on vexatious litigants in New Brunswick is Bossé v.

Immeubles Robo Ltée, (NewBrunswick CA) where the Court provided the following guidance at paragraphs 21 through 23: [21] The purpose of the Rule is to allow the Court to control its own process and to prevent the abuse of that process by a litigantrepeatedly pursuing unmeritorious proceedings that needlessly result in the expenditure of administrative and judicial resources,and, of course, cause the attendant unnecessary expense to other parties.

The order will issue, however, only after it is concluded itis in the public interest to do so in order to prevent ongoing abuse of the Court’s process. [22] An order made pursuant to the Rule is not made lightly, and is rare. The reason for this is clear: as a general rule, litigants shouldhave the right to access the courts (see Kallaba v. Bylykbashi, (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 545 (QL), leave to appealdismissed, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 144, at para. 31). [23] McLachlin C.J., in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v.

British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59, [2014] 3S.C.R. 31, writes however: “…There is no constitutional right to bring frivolous or vexatious cases, and measures that deter suchcases may actually increase efficiency and overall access to justice” (para. 47). [Emphasis mine] [16] The Court of Appeal in Bossé also referred to the important gatekeeping role played by the courts at paragraph 40: [40] In HMTQ, van Rensburg J. pointed out that a vexatious litigation order serves the public interest in access to justice.

Iwholeheartedly embrace her conclusion: A vexatious litigant order also serves the public interest in access to justice. As Power J. noted in Roscoe v. Roscoe (2005), (ON SC), 24 R.F.L. (6th) 331 (aff’d. on this issue at 2007 ONCA 516 (C.A.)) at para. 1: …This court has limited resources and must, therefore, attempt to deal with the work before it in a fashion that is fair to all users of thecourt.

While a person’s access to justice is a fundamental right, the court must be diligent to ensure that its processes are notabused by any particular litigant to the detriment, not only to those directly involved in the litigation, but, as well, to the system atlarge. [Emphasis mine] [17] The Federal Court of Appeal also weighed in on the toll to the court system as a result of the actions of vexatious litigants. InCanada v.

Olumide, 2017 FCA 42 , the Federal Court of Appeal commented at paragraphs 18 to 20 as follows: [18] As community property, courts allow unrestricted access by default: anyone with standing can start a proceeding. But those whomisuse unrestricted access in a damaging way must be restrained. In this way, courts are no different from other community

properties like public parks, libraries, community halls and museums. [19] The Federal Courts have finite resources that cannot be squandered. Every moment devoted to a vexatious litigant is a moment unavailable to a deserving litigant. The unrestricted access to courts by those whose access should be restricted affects the access of others who need and deserve it. Inaction on the former damages the latter. [20] This isn’t just a zero-sum game where a single vexatious litigant injures a single innocent litigant.

A single vexatious litigant gobbles up scarce judicial and registry resources, injuring tens or more innocent litigants. The injury shows itself in many ways: to name a few, a reduced ability on the part of the registry to assist well-intentioned but needy self-represented litigants, a reduced ability of the court to manage proceedings needing management, and delays for all litigants in getting hearings, directions, orders, judgments and reasons. [Emphasis mine] [ 18 ] Mr. Rogers filed 42 additional matters from the time the last motion for

summary judgment was heard in October 2022 leading up to the present action. Mr. Rogers’ use of the court system as a tool to advance his own agenda and pursue individuals who work within the administration of justice at all levels cannot be allowed to continue and clearly will not stop absent a court order. There is no doubt in this case that it is in the public interest to declare Mr. Rogers a vexations litigant. [ 19 ] I am satisfied that not only must Mr. Rogers be declared a vexatious litigant, but the order must also provide that any matters already filed with the court may not proceed absent a court order.

A similar approach was followed by the court of appeal in Bossé . As noted by Justice Baird at paragraph 41 of Bossé as follows: [41] I am satisfied that Bossé and ROBO have persistently, and without reasonable grounds, commenced vexatious proceedings in the Court of Appeal, and I grant the request by Caisse. I declare Bossé and ROBO vexatious litigants and order the following:

a) Bossé and ROBO shall not commence any further proceedings in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal except with leave of a judge of the Court;

b) Bossé and ROBO shall not continue any proceedings previously commenced in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal except with leave of the Court. All proceedings brought by Bossé and ROBO in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, and underway presently, are hereby stayed, pending leave of the Court to proceed;

c) The Registrar of the Court of Appeal is hereby authorized to reject any document that is attempted to be filed in contravention of this order. COSTS [ 20 ] Mr. Caissie is entitled to significant costs. Mr. Rogers’ action is completely bereft of merit. Mr. Caissie has been put to the expense and inconvenience of dealing with this vexatious proceeding. Costs are fixed at $5,000.00. CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION [ 21 ] For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court orders as follows:

(1) Mr. Caissie, is granted

summary judgement pursuant to Rule 22.04(1) (

a) of the New Brunswick Rules of Court ;

(2) Mr. Rogers’ action in MC-608-2022 is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and is struck in its entirety pursuant to Rule 27.09 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court ;

(3) Michael Rogers, is declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to Rule 76.1.02 (

a) of the New Brunswick Rules of Court and is prohibited from commencing any proceeding in the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench without leave of a judge;

(4) Pursuant to Rule 76.1.02 (

b) of the New Brunswick Rules of Court , Michael Rogers, shall not continue any proceedings previously commenced in the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench except with leave of this court. All proceedings brought by Michael Rogers in

the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench and underway presently are hereby stayed pending a leave of the court to proceed;

(6) All clerks of the court of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench are hereby authorized to reject any document that is attempted to be filed in contravention of this order; and

(7) Mr. Caissie is entitled to costs, payable by Mr. Rogers, in the amount of $5000 DATED at Moncton, N.B., this 20 th day of January 2023. _______________________________________ Tracey K. DeWare Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick