Timothy Lee Felger, 2020 BCPC 221

Citation: Timothy Lee Felger 2020 BCPC 221 Date: 20201120 File No: 92376-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Between TIMOTHY LEE FELGER Respondent DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C.D. SICOTTE Appearing on his own behalf: T. Felger Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 15, 2020 Date of Judgment: November 20, 2020

[1] On September 25, 2020 Mr. Timothy Felger came before me to provide evidence to support four private Informations that hehad sworn charging 11 people with 24 criminal charges. [2] In the course of my deliberations with respect to Mr. Felger’s applications, I learned that Mr. Felger has used the process ofswearing private Informations many times in the past. [3] I had the matters called back into court on October 15, 2020 at which point I advised Mr.

Felger that, on my own motion, I wasconsidering designating him a vexatious or abusive litigant and restricting him in some fashion from swearing out further unwarrantedprivate Informations. [4] I invited both Mr. Felger and the Crown to provide written submissions addressing three questions: 1) Do I have the jurisdiction, in effect, the ability to make such a designation; 2) If I do, should I make such a designation with respect to Mr. Felger swearing private Informations; 3) If I do make such a designation, what restrictions would be appropriate for the court to put in place. [5] Mr.

Felger subsequently provided written submissions the vast majority of which addressed the original Process Hearing issuesinstead of the issues surrounding his potential designation as a vexatious litigant. He did, however, argue that the court has usedextraneous considerations and exceeded its jurisdiction. He also wrote that the court is “… making an intentional, blatant, abuse ofjurisdiction for political reasons and … is incapable of being objective or impartial.” [6] Mr.

Felger reiterated in subsequent written submissions that the court is exceeding its jurisdiction by conducting an inquiry intoa vexatious litigant designation. [7] Mr. Felger also provided me with a

summary of Glazer v. Union Contractors Ltd and Thornton, . [8] Crown Counsel did not provide any submissions. [9] In reasons provided separately in a closed court, I concluded the Process Hearing by refusing to issue process on any of thecounts or Informations that Mr. Felger had sworn. Amongst others, he swore charges against judges, lawyers, social workers and policeofficers. [10] Some of the charges were untenable on their face. On others, Mr. Felger failed to provide evidence on essential elements. On stillothers, I declined to issue process based on my finding that Mr.

Felger brought the charges against J.D. and C.U. for a vexatious orabusive purpose. [11] What is to stop Mr. Felger from simply swearing a new private Information against the same individuals alleging the samemisdeeds? QUESTION ONE [12] I return then to the first of the three questions I put to Mr. Felger, whether this court has the jurisdiction to designate someone asa vexatious litigant. [13]

Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act clearly confers on the Supreme Court of this province the jurisdiction to designate a litigantas vexatious based on their activities before both the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court.

It reads as follows: If, on application by any person, the court is satisfied that a person has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds, institutedvexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the Provincial Court against the same or different persons, the court may, afterhearing that person or giving him or her an opportunity to be heard, order that a legal proceeding must not, without leave of the court, beinstituted by that person in any court. [14] While there is no legislation granting the Provincial Court the equivalent powers set out in s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act withrespect to vexatious litigants, it is now clear that such legislation would not apply to the persistent laying of private Informations in anycase. [15] A few days ago our Court of Appeal released the decision of Holland v.

British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 304.This case ultimately turned on the Appellant wrongfully using a civil process to appeal a criminal order. In his reasons, however, theHonourable Justice Harris for the court considered the constitutionality of applying Provincial vexatious litigant legislation to processesunder the Criminal Code.

He states at para. 19, “… the Legislature, in passing vexatious litigant legislation, did not intend to regulatecriminal procedure.” [16] In para. 33 he concluded further that, apart from the making of criminal rules as specifically authorized in the Criminal Code,“… provincial regulation of criminal procedure would be constitutionally infirm...” and a violation of the doctrine of paramountcy. [17] What the court in Holland does not address is the common law inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its own process. [18] In Shantz, Gorman and Godfroid, 2012 BCPC 81, the Honourable Judge Hamilton, although not in the criminal context,reasoned that the Provincial Court must have the inherent jurisdiction to restrict vexatious litigants.

He wrote at paras 63 and 64:

[63] I am of the view that litigants cannot institute vexatious proceedings in the Provincial Court or abuse the process in theProvincial Court and our judges must simply sit idly by without any ability to intervene and stop that process while waiting for aSupreme Court Justice to invoke the authority of

section 18 of the Supreme Court Act.

The Provincial Court is a court of justice andjudges of our court must have the jurisdiction to stop any activity by a litigant that creates a procedural injustice in our court. [64] Based upon the foregoing, I conclude that the Provincial Court has an inherent procedural jurisdiction, that is, an inherentjurisdiction to make procedural orders to achieve justice between the litigants before the court and to ensure that the Provincial Court isnot used in a manner that is vexatious or an abuse of process. [19] Judge Hamilton concludes at para. 66: For these reasons, I conclude that the Provincial Court has the jurisdiction to make a vexatious litigant declaration and thereby restrictthat litigant's access to this court, all as part of the Provincial Court's inherent procedural jurisdiction. [20] In Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v.

Houweling, 2010 BCCA 315 Justice Frankel for the court stated at para. 40: What, then, can a court do to bring to an end the misuse of the litigation process caused by the repetitive filing of unmeritoriousapplications that result in the needless expenditure of judicial resources and, in some cases, unnecessary expense to other parties? Theanswer lies in the ancillary (inherent) jurisdiction that every court has to prevent its process from being abused. As Madam JusticeArbour stated in United States of America v.

Shulman, 2001 SCC 21, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616, an appellate court "like all courts, [has] animplied, if not inherent, jurisdiction to control its own process, including through the application of the common law doctrine of abuse ofprocess": para. 33. [21] Based on the foregoing, I conclude that where the court processes are being abused, the Provincial Court does have the inherentcommon law jurisdiction to designate a litigant as “vexatious” or “abusive”, whether in the context of civil litigation or in the swearing ofprivate Informations. QUESTION TWO [22] The next question to address is whether Mr.

Felger meets the criteria for designation as a vexatious litigant. [23] In Re Lang Michener and Fabian, , the Ontario High Court of Justice considered several cases regardingapplications to have litigants declared vexatious, and then listed the following non-exhaustive identifying criteria: (

a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdictionconstitutes 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 canreasonably 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 bymultifarious 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 subsequentactions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlierproceedings; (

e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether therewas 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 indetermining whether proceedings are vexatious; (

g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conductof legal proceedings. [24] The Court in Chutskoff v. Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 at para. 92 listed further indicia of a vexatious litigant which includecommencing litigation consisting of, amongst other things, collateral attacks, hopeless proceedings and unsubstantiated allegations ofconspiracy, fraud, and misconduct. [25] In Lindsay v.

Canada (Attorney General), 2005 BCCA 594 the court declined to declare a litigant “vexatious” under s. 18 of theSupreme Court Act as the court was not prepared to find that his behaviour was “habitual”. Mr. Justice Donald, for the Court of Appeal,however, did state in para. 27 that, “… Mr. Lindsay has surely taken himself so close to the line that any further litigious behaviour of avexatious nature will put the matter beyond doubt…” [26] Can there be any doubt that Mr.

Felger’s behaviour in laying private Informations meets the above criteria for designation as“vexatious”? [27] I will take some time to go through his history in that regard not only to show why his behaviour qualifies as vexatious, but alsoto justify the restrictions I will ultimately impose. [28] In addition to the 11 people charged with 24 offences before me, Mr. Felger has sworn many private Informations in the past.The most frequent target of these private Informations is Mr. Felger’s former common law wife, J.D. [29] The first private Information sworn by Mr.

Felger that I could locate at the Abbotsford Court registry was Information 80315

sworn on December 20, 2013 charging a local politician with public mischief. Process was denied. [ 30 ] Within two weeks, Mr. Felger swore Information 80321 charging a social worker with child abduction from October 20, 2011. What follows over the next few months is Mr. Felger swearing approximately 15 private Informations. He charged former business contacts with forgery and obstruction of justice going back to 2006.

He charged J.D., her lawyer, social workers, police officers, the MCFD lawyers and others with making false allegations, public mischief and harassment based on complaints they made to the police or courts about Mr. Felger’s behaviour. He charged an MCFD lawyer with extortion for trying to convince Mr. Felger to consent to an order. [ 31 ] A joint process hearing was held May 5, 2014 with respect to Informations 80321, 80671, 80672, 80673 and 80674.

The Honourable Judge Skilnick stated the following in his reasons released May 28, 2014: The applicant currently has at least thirteen such applications before this court, including the five that are the subject of this application. He stated in his submissions that he intends to bring approximately forty-five such applications and is asking for a number of days of court time for process hearings in respect of these applications.

Most of these have their genesis in a family court decision in court file F14516, in which the Applicant made an application for guardianship and primary care of the child who was the subject of those proceedings. While the application for guardianship was granted, much of the other relief that the Applicant sought was denied by the order of the Honourable Judge Brown on May 24, 2013. Many of the Informations on which the Applicant wishes process to issue allege offences against persons affiliated with that decision, either as parties, witnesses, lawyers, or social workers.

The Applicant candidly admits that he is attempting to use the criminal process as a means of addressing what is, in his opinion, an unjust result in the family court proceedings. [ 32 ] Judge Skilnick went on to quote from Judge Brown’s trial decision T.F. v. A.D , 2013 BCPC 205 . Judge Brown stated at para. 40: The only domestic violence concern I have at this juncture … is the allegation that [Mr. Felger] is a bully. In the past he has berated social workers, made complaints about doctors, and threatened to report lawyers to the Law Society.

He recently would not accept increased visitation unless A.D. signed a very one-sided order which he had prepared. [ 33 ] Judge Skilnick concluded the process application with respect to one of the counts before him by stating: I find the application for process against this proposed accused in count 1 to be based on … ulterior motives and to constitute … an abuse of process. [ 34 ] At the end of his reasons for declining process, Judge Skilnick admonished Mr. Felger not to use the criminal process to pursue his private interests in the context of his family court issues.

The Judge stated: Allowing this to occur is not in the public interest and it cannot be in the best interests of children who are the subject of those proceedings and who have to spend their childhood in that sort of combat zone. Courts should act to prevent such an abuse of process when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is occurring. [Emphasis added.] File 81024 and 81025 [ 35 ] How did Mr. Felger respond to Judge Skilnick’s comments from May 28, 2014?

He waited almost three months and then on August 21, 2014 he swore Information 81025 charging J.D. and C.P. with public mischief from September 3, 2013. He alleged they falsely accused Mr. Felger of uttering threats and child abduction. On September 4, 2014 a Provincial Court Judge refused to issue process. [ 36 ] Also on August 21, 2014, Mr. Felger swore Information 81024-1 charging C.P. with six counts of imitating a peace officer from September 3 - 20, 2013. C.P. was a friend or associate of J.D. who supported J.D. in her family court matters against Mr. Felger.

At a Process Hearing on September 4, 2014 the Honourable Judge Skilnick refused to issue process on Count 1, but did so on Counts 2 through 6, though ordering process held for 90 days for Crown to make a decision on the file. As it happens, Crown had already laid Information 80862 four months earlier charging C.P. with four counts of falsely representing himself as a peace officer and using a badge for that purpose. On September 15, 2014 Crown Counsel directed a Stay of Proceedings on all charges on Mr. Felger’s Information 81024-1. [ 37 ] Undeterred, on February 13, 2015 Mr.

Felger swore Information 81024-2 re-charging C.P. with personating a peace officer from July to December 2013. Process was refused by a Provincial Court Judge on May 27, 2015. [ 38 ] Still persisting, on July 22, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Information 81024-4 charging C.P., J.D. and three lawyers with effectively conspiring to take advantage of C.P’s imitation of a peace officer from July to December 2013. Process was refused on November 13, 2015. [ 39 ] Five days later, on November 18, 2015, Mr. Felger swore Information 81024-5 charging C.P. with personating a peace officer on September 3 and December 9, 2013.

Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings on January 20, 2016. Files 81610 and 84834 [ 40 ] During the almost two years that the saga of file 81024 was unfolding, Mr. Felger was not idle. On December 4, 2014 he swore Information 81610 charging two police officers with mischief for failing to do their duty resulting in the arrest of Mr. Felger instead of J.D. At the Process Hearing on March 18, 2015, the Honourable Judge Jardine told Mr. Felger: I tried at the commencement to have you reflect carefully on the need for legal advice … that would ensure that the offences which you

are purporting to bring were properly worded. There are many avenues of getting legal advice which would assist you in understanding the process on which you have chosen to embark. It is not the most effective way, Mr. Felger, to try and deal with what I’ll call Child, Family and Community Service Act litigation or Family Law Act litigation to invoke the criminal law…where the court, and the Crown, must exercise a gatekeeper role. [Emphasis added.] [ 41 ] After hearing from the court, Mr. Felger withdrew his application for process. [ 42 ] One week later Mr.

Felger swore Information 81610-2C, a somewhat more clearly worded Information, re-charging the same two police officers with the same offence. At the Process Hearing on April 13, 2015 the Provincial Court Judge refused to issue process. [ 43 ] On September 2, 2016 Mr. Felger swore Information 81610-3C charging the same two police officers with criminal misconduct again for the same incident. He also charged J.D. and two social workers with obstruction. A process hearing was scheduled for November 9, 2016. That process hearing was also scheduled to deal with Information 84834-1.

That is a 16 count Information charging approximately 20 various police officers, lawyers and social workers with criminal misconduct and obstruction. [ 44 ] Mr. Felger failed to show up for the Process Hearing on November 9, 2016. While ultimately dismissing the Informations, the Provincial Court Judge commented: Mr. Felger is well-known to the courts and has made numerous applications for process for a variety of alleged wrongdoings.

I have dealt with him on one occasion on which I dismissed the application for process because it was untenable on the face of it, and I can say by looking at these two Informations, they appear to fall within the same category. Mr. Felger is attempting to address alleged wrongs done to him by agents or employees of the Children’s Ministry… [Emphasis added.] [ 45 ] And further: Then we have 84834-1 which appears to be even more outrageous, dealing with various lawyers that have assisted him and he alleges did not complete disclosure.

There are a number of other allegations that it appears, without even hearing evidence, are completely without merit or validity. It is unfortunate that to date nothing has been done to prevent Mr. Felger from filing these Informations and seeking court time… However, the Crown has not made any application for the court to make any order with respect to dealing with Mr. Felger … but it is clear that Mr. Felger is abusing the process… [Emphasis added.] [ 46 ] Crown advised the Court on this occasion that Mr.

Felger had, at that point, initiated 13 private Informations against J.D. alone. [ 47 ] Five days later, on November 14, 2016 Mr. Felger swore a 26 count Information, 84834-2, at the Abbotsford Court registry charging J.D., many police officers, social workers, a judge, four Crown prosecutors, other lawyers, Mr. Felger’s probation officer and other civilians with a menagerie of criminal charges. On May 11, 2017 a Provincial Court Judge refused to issue process on any of the charges. He concluded by stating: I recognize Mr.

Felger’s passion on these matters, I understand his feelings about them, however, on all the information presented, it falls short. I do not see the evidence of even a prima facie case of criminal conduct. I see … primarily dissatisfaction with investigative steps … Simply conflicting information does not necessarily mean criminal conduct or attempt to mislead or wilfulness in misleading. File 82231 [ 48 ] On February 13, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Information 82231-1 charging J.D.’s lawyer with misleading the court on March 8, 2013.

At a process hearing on May 27, 2015 a Provincial Court Judge refused to issue process. [ 49 ] Three months later, on August 26, 2015, Mr. Felger swore Information 82231-2 charging the same lawyer with the same offence on the same date. This time however, he subpoenaed J.D. to testify against her former lawyer. At the process hearing on October 23, 2015 the Provincial Court Judge, after a full hearing with evidence and submissions, refused to issue process. [ 50 ] Again, undeterred, Mr.

Felger on March 23, 2016 swore Information 82231-3 charging seven lawyers, four police officers and J.D. with perverting justice in various ways between October 20, 2011 and March 15, 2016. Crown Counsel directed a Stay of Proceedings on April 7, 2016. Files 82228, 82229 & 83408 [ 51 ] On February 13, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Informations 82228-1, 82228-2 and 82229-1 charging eight civilians with nuisance and mischief and ten police officers with mischief by wilfully failing in their duties, all in June and July 2013. On May 15, 2015 Mr.

Felger swore Information 82229-2 charging two of those same police officers with willfully failing in their duties on June 4, 2013. On June 29, 2015 a Provincial Court Judge refused to issue process against any of those charged on any of these Informations as there was no evidence on an essential element of the charges. I note that two lawyers were present representing two of the police officers facing charges. [ 52 ] On August 26, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Information 82228-3C re-charging six of the same civilians with the identical nuisance charge based on the identical incident from 2013.

On October 16, 2015 process was again refused.

[ 53 ] On November 18, 2015 Mr. Felger again charged three of those same police officers plus one other in Information 82229-3 with obstructing justice on June 4, 2013. On January 8, 2016 a Provincial Court Judge, after hearing from a subpoenaed witness, refused to issue process as again there was no evidence on an essential element of the charge. [ 54 ] Four days later, on January 12, 2016, Mr. Felger swore Information 82229-4 charging one of the prior charged officers with obstruction of justice on June 4, 2013 for failing to gather certain evidence.

Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings on April 27, 2016. [ 55 ] Nine days later, Mr. Felger swore a six count Information, 82229-5, charging 11 people. Police officers were re-charged with various offences including, this time, conspiracy regarding what they failed to do on June 4, 2013. Two Crown Counsel were charged with perverting the course of justice for issuing Stays of Proceedings. They were also charged with mischief for failing to do their duty as Crown. Two City of Abbotsford employees were charged with nuisance.

Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings on most of the Charges and a Provincial Court Judge on October 14, 2016 said the following at the process hearing on the remaining charge: It just strikes me that your way of trying to attack this problem is misguided. You are attempting to use the Criminal Code and to lay a criminal charge where it is not appropriate to do so. [ 56 ] And further: I cannot find any basis to characterize [what is alleged] as an illegal act.

I have not been referred to any particular laws that were being broken, nor can I find any basis to say the City employees were failing to discharge a legal duty. [ 57 ] The Judge refused to issue process. [ 58 ] One month later, on November 14, 2016, Mr. Felger swore a three count Information, 82229-6, re-charging one of the prior police officers and charging another police officer with misconduct under s. 128 (

a) of the Criminal Code based on their actions from June 4, 2013. He also charged two municipal employees with putting up a fence which did “… interfere with the lawful use of a legally recognized protest camp of the Drug War Survivors…” thereby committing mischief. [ 59 ] At the Process Hearing held February 16, 2017, the Provincial Court Judge stated, “… the acts described to me … do not in fact constitute an offence under s. 430(1)(

d) or under any other

section that I am familiar with.” And further, “… while there may be a remedy when a police officer refuses to take a complaint from a civilian, it is not a criminal remedy and it certainly is not a criminal offence…” [ 60 ] Process was refused. [ 61 ] On November 18, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Information 83408 charging a bylaw officer with mischief for damaging a “memorial” to the war on drugs. At the scheduled process hearing on February 12, 2016 the Provincial Court Judge refused to even conduct the process hearing. He said, amongst other things: This is not a criminal matter that you’re alleging.

It’s a political matter, and you have political opportunities available to you outside this courtroom. What I find this morning is that … you’ve come here to completely waste the court’s time.” File 83036 [ 62 ] On August 26, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Information 83036-1 charging his former landlord with five counts of obstructing justice based on various incidents that this person described to either the police or a social worker. At the process hearing on October 30, 2015, the Provincial Court declined to issue process. [ 63 ] Mr.

Felger also swore Information 83036-2 charging his former landlord with two counts of committing mischief by making false statements regarding how Mr. Felger treated his child. At the same process hearing on October 30, 2015 process was declined. [ 64 ] On February 23, 2016 Mr. Felger swore Information 83036-3 charging his former landlord with eight counts of obstructing justice from 2012 to 2014 in various ways including providing information to an MCFD social worker, failing to testify against J.D. and misleading the Residential Tenancy arbitrator.

At the Process Hearing on February 29, 2016 the Provincial Court Judge refused to issue process and stated: Mr. Felger is a desperate man. This, he tells me, is his potentially 40 th private Information that he has laid and sought process on. I say he is desperate because, aside from the sheer volume of Informations he has laid, the lengths that he goes to try and justify the counts in the two Informations that I have looked at, is remarkable. [ 65 ] On March 15, 2016 Mr. Felger swore Information 83036-4 yet again charging his former landlord, this time with two counts of providing false evidence against Mr.

Felger on September 10, 2014. Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings on March 29, 2016. [ 66 ] Still undeterred, which by now will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, Mr. Felger, on August 10, 2016, swore Information 83036-5 charging his former landlord with obstructing Mr. Felger’s use of property between 2012 and 2015. Crown directed a Stay of Proceedings that very same day. Files 82100 and 82101 [ 67 ] On December 30, 2014 Mr. Felger swore Informations 82100 and 82101 charging J.D. and her lawyer with child abduction when the parenting time order was not followed.

Both Informations were dismissed for want of prosecution when Mr. Felger failed to show up for the Process Hearing on March 18, 2015. [ 68 ] However, on March 25, 2015, Mr. Felger promptly re-swore the exact same charges. At the process hearing on January 6, 2016

the Provincial Court Judge, while refusing to issue process, told Mr. Felger, “… I have the greatest of sympathy for you, sir, but yourcorrect pursuit is in the family court, not in the criminal court.” Other Files [69] On April 17, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Informations 82241, 82242 and 82243 charging a lawyer, two social workers and a Judgewith endangering Mr. Felger’s child by underestimating the danger that C.U. posed to the child. Mr. Felger subpoenaed a witness for theprocess hearing.

That witness filed an Affidavit stating amongst other things, “… I have no personal information whatsoever in relationto the above cited matter.” Further, “Mr. Felger has served subpoenas upon me as a harassment measure and in a frivolous manner.” Andfinally, “… I have no material evidence to provide the court…” Process was denied. [70] On September 30, 2015 Mr. Felger swore Information 83403 at the Abbotsford Court registry charging J.D. and her lawyer withcommitting public mischief for allegedly providing false information to the police regarding Mr. Felger.

A Provincial Court Judgerefused to issue process on that Information. [71] On September 26, 2017 he swore Information 86705 at the Abbotsford Registry charging J.D. with perjury. Crown Counseldirected a Stay of Proceedings on this matter on November 2, 2017, the day before the process hearing was to be held. [72] On December 5, 2017 Crown directed Stays on Informations 86708 and 86709 which Mr. Felger had sworn at the AbbotsfordCourt registry on October 17, 2017 charging J.D. with perjury and charging her lawyer with committing contempt of court. [73] There were other Informations sworn by Mr.

Felger in the Abbotsford registry as well, reflecting the same flavour as many ofthose mentioned. [74] By my count, since 2013, Mr. Felger has sworn out 71 private Informations in Abbotsford, Port Coquitlam and Vancouver. [75] Returning then to the criteria for designating a litigant as vexatious, Mr. Felger’s conduct in laying these numerous repetitivehopeless Informations meets most of the criteria listed in the case law. [76] It is beyond question that Mr. Felger’s seven-year pattern in swearing private Informations warrants designation as a vexatiouslitigant. It appears that Mr.

Felger swears out criminal charges against many of the social workers, police officers, lawyers and judgesthat did not do something in the way that Mr. Felger thought they should. He also repeatedly swears Informations against his ex-common law wife J.D. and people that she may associate with from time to time. This is a colossal waste of time and resources for theProvincial Court and the Crown. While I only examined the files that Mr. Felger had sworn in the Abbotsford registry (approximately67), in the vast majority Mr. Felger did not even have sufficient evidence or clarity of charge for process to issue.

In the five cases whereprocess was issued, Crown Counsel directed a Stay of Proceedings almost immediately (leading of course to Mr. Felger laying privateInformations against those Crown Counsel). [77] I unreservedly conclude that Mr. Felger should be designated a vexatious litigant. QUESTION THREE [78] The question remains, then, what restrictions should the court put on Mr. Felger?

He has a right to have access to the privateInformation process, but no right to unreasonably waste the resources of the Provincial Court and the Crown. [79] In Houweling, Justice Frankel stated at para. 43: Notwithstanding that judges of this Court have repeatedly held that Mr. Houweling's applications are unmeritorious, he continues tobring them. Judicial resources are not infinite. Not only do Mr. Houweling's applications take up the time of judges and court staff, theytake up court-time that could be used to hear other matters. While Mr.

Houweling is entitled to his "day in court", he is not entitled tocome back day after day in the futile pursuit of remedies to which he is not entitled. The path he seems determined to follow adverselyaffects the ability of others to have their cases heard in a timely way. [80] This reasoning applies equally to Mr. Felger’s conduct in swearing numerous private Informations. [81] In Ontario v.

Jogendra, 2012 ONCA 834 the Court upheld a decision of Justice Hainey at 2012 ONSC 3303 rejecting theCrown’s application to require the Defendant to obtain leave of a Superior Court Judge prior to instituting a private prosecution. [82] Justice Hainey agreed that the Defendant was a vexatious litigant who had pursued eight private prosecutions, but concluded atpara. 67: In my view, the order sought by the Applicant would simply replace the pre-enquete hearing process provided for in

section 507.1 withan application process in the Superior Court of Justice. I see no compelling reason to substitute a Superior Court judge for a Justice of thePeace to determine if any future private criminal charges instituted by Mr. Jogendra have merit. [83] In British Columbia, the s. 507.1 hearings take place before a Provincial Court Judge rather than a Justice of the Peace. Mr.Felger has sworn out far in excess of eight private Informations making the situation here far more egregious than that facing the court inJogendra.

All of that being said, I agree that it achieves little to simply substitute an application in Supreme Court for one in ProvincialCourt. [84] I note, however, that some courts have adopted that very process. When a persistent de-taxer litigant, David Lindsay, submitted28 private Informations over several years against police officers and court staff, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench prohibited Mr.Lindsay from swearing private Informations without leave of a judge from the higher court (Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Lindsay, (MB KB), 1997 120 Man R (2d) 141). This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Manitoba (Attorney

General) v Lindsay, 2000 MBCA 11. [85] In R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390 Justice Marceau upheld the right of a Provincial Court Judge, in dealing with a vexatiouslitigant, to direct that all future private Informations sworn by that litigant come before a particular Provincial Court Judge. The Courtstated at para. 76: A requirement to direct review of private informations to a specific judge does not prevent laying of any particular private criminalinformation, but simply adds a necessary safeguard to constrain a vexatious litigant's abuse of the court.

In that sense, a provincial courtjudge's authority to specify the judge who shall hear future s. 507.1 hearings for a particular vexatious litigant can be seen as just anotheraspect of the residual discretion to refuse process based on the disordered, abusive, or vexatious character of the deponent. [86] In McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 493, Justice Simpson dealt with an application to have Mr. McKechnie declared a vexatiouslitigant regarding behaviour which included swearing multiple criminal Informations.

The court described the behaviour of Mr.McKechnie in paras. 20 and 21: [20] A third class of problematic litigation by McKechnie is that he is submitting a large volume of private informations allegingcriminal misconduct by a provincial court judge, lawyers, including Crown Prosecutors and defence counsel, government institutions,the Edmonton Police Service, and individual police officers. [21] The alleged criminal conduct is in certain instances obviously spurious, such as claims that failure to provide writing paperbreaches the Charter, or impossible and therefore abusive, such as criminal allegations against the provincial court judge, which arehopeless due to the immunity for decisions makers exercising judicial duties: Morier and Boily v Rivard, (SCC), [1985]2 SCR 716, 23 DLR (4th) 1. [81] I note that Mr.

Felger has repeatedly laid private Informations against Provincial Court Judges based on their judicial actions. Hehas been told in the past that such charges are hopeless but he persists. In Information 91688 sworn July 15, 2020 Mr.

Felger charged 3different Judges with: … intentionally breaching [their] prescribed Standard of care at s. 37(3) of the Family Law Act (to protect the child to the greatestextend possible) and inflict emotional suffering either directly or indirectly on [the child] which acts constitutes an abuse of process andcontempt of court, Contrary to: section 139(2) of the Criminal code of Canada [sic] [87] The vast majority of Mr.

Felger’s Informations are very badly worded or allege activities that constitute no valid criminal charge.For example, in Information 91685 also sworn July 15, 2020, one count charges that a certain lawyer: … did wilfully attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding; The perjury that was committed by[J.D.] would have been easily detectable before the hearings if [the lawyer] had searched for and reviewed the police report or Children’sMinistry documents that could be requested by phone and or fax when it was her duty to do so, which constitutes contempt of court,contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. [88] In many other instances, even if the charge is discernible, Mr.

Felger fails to call any evidence at the Process Hearing addressingone or more essential elements of the offence charged. [89] The target of many of Mr. Felger’s private Informations is his ex- common-law wife, and based on the nature of many of thoseallegations, I conclude that often Mr. Felger is swearing these Informations for an abusive or improper purpose. [90] While I will not bar Mr.

Felger from swearing private Informations, I will at least take steps to ensure that if he does so, he doesso in a manner that is not a complete waste of valuable court resources. [91] In McKechnie at paragraph 30, Justice Simpson concluded: In light of my conclusion that McKechnie is filing and attempting to file court documents for an illegal purpose and to inflict harm ontargets, I also require that McKechnie may only submit or attempt to file documents in Alberta Courts via a member in good standing ofthe Law Society of Alberta… This includes laying private informations in the Provincial Court of Alberta. [92] I find that the approach taken by Justice Simpson finds the proper balance between protecting the Provincial Court from Mr.Felger’s abusive time-wasting behaviour while still allowing him to swear valid private Informations. [93] Therefore, I order as follows: 1.

Neither Timothy Lee Felger nor anyone acting on his behalf shall swear or attempt to swear any private Information in anyregistry of the Provincial Court of British Columbia unless that Information contains a verifiable certification on the bottom that it wasdrafted 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 verify the certification and discardany document that is attempted to be sworn in contravention of this order. 3.

Timothy Lee Felger will not present evidence at any Process Hearing in British Columbia unless, at that hearing, he isrepresented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia. 4. Timothy Lee Felger may apply to vary this order provided the application is filed by and spoken to by a member in goodstanding of the Law Society of British Columbia.

______________________________ The Honourable Judge C.D. Sicotte Provincial Court of British Columbia