Attoney General of Canada v. Robbins Date:, 2012 BCPC 272

Citation: Attoney General of Canada v. Robbins Date: 20120612 2012 BCPC 0272 File No: C11342 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA CLAIMANT AND: GLEN PATRICK ROBBINS DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BULLER BENNETT Counsel for the Claimant: R. Ritson Appearing on their own behalf: The Defendant, G. Robbins Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C.

Date of Hearing: June 12, 2012 Date of Judgment: June 12, 2012 [ 1 ] THE COURT: This is an application by the defendant, Mr. Robbins, to dismiss the claim of the Attorney General of Canada against him. The claim specifically is for an amount outstanding in excess of our jurisdiction, but certainly I am assuming that the amount over $25,000 is waived. [ 2 ] By way of background, in the late 1970s, Mr. Robbins obtained student loans. The total principal amount by the documents submitted in court was $8,099. It is not disputed that he received the loan and it is also not disputed that he had not paid back that loan.

The Attorney General of Canada is just simply seeking to collect a debt owed by Mr. Robbins arising from an unpaid judgment. [ 3 ] The Attorney General of Canada is seeking to have payment of a judgment made by Justice Koenisberg of the British Columbia Supreme Court on October 31, 2000. For the record, it is Vancouver Registry File No. S001279. I will read the order into the record: The application of the plaintiff Attorney General of Canada coming on for hearing this 31st day of October, 2000 at the courthouse at 800 Smith Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, and on hearing Ori J.

Kowarsky, counsel for the plaintiff, and no one appearing for the defendant, Glen Patrick Robbins, and on reading the material filed, the Court orders that: 1. The statement of defence entered by the defendant, Glen Patrick Robbins, cannot stand and proceedings will continue as if no defence was filed. 2. The defendant, Glen Patrick Robbins, pay to the plaintiff the sum of $10,814.72 being the total amount of the first judgment (principal) plus post-judgment interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum from February 7, 1985 to October 31st, 2000 in the amount of $8,510.83. 3.

The defendant pay to the plaintiff costs. 4. The claim made against Canada Customs & Revenue Agency in statement of defence entered by the defendant, Glen Patrick Robbins, cannot stand and proceedings will continue as if no defence was filed. 5. The counterclaim and its prayer for relief entered by the defendant, Glen Patrick Robbins, be struck. [ 4 ] So that is the order that the Attorney General of Canada seeks to enforce. [ 5 ] There were no appeals of any type of the October 31, 2000 order, so I am, according to the Canada Evidence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-5, taking this as a valid order. (There is no evidence before me that it is an invalid order). [ 6 ] By way of argument, Mr. Robbins says first that the Provincial Small Claims Court is outside the jurisdiction for hearing this matter. That raises square on the issue of jurisdiction. [ 7 ] The first issue in my view, however, is the limitation period. Of course under s.3(3) (

f) of the Limitation Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266 the creditor, being the Attorney General of Canada, has ten years to commence an action. The order was made October 31, 2000. The notice of claim was filed in this Court September 14, 2010.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the action was started before the limitation period expired, and I dismiss the defendant's application with respect to the limitation period. [ 8 ] With respect to jurisdiction of the Court, of course the Court has the jurisdiction for actions in debt and our limit is $25,000, so the maximum that the Court could award if the claimant were successful is $25,000. Any excess would be waived of course. So I am satisfied that the Court does have jurisdiction because the matter is framed in debt.

Thus there is jurisdiction in quantum and I have to dismiss the defendant's application with respect to jurisdiction in monetary amount. [ 9 ] Mr. Robbins has also raised the issue of res judicata . There is no other action that I have been made aware of for collection on this judgment of 2000. Therefore, the argument of res judicata does not apply. I dismiss the part of the application that raises res judicata . [ 10 ] Now, Mr. Robbins has also raised the issues of abuse of process that the orders sought by the Attorney General, claimant, are not consistent with the orders.

He has also raised that the action is a complete and absurd abuse of natural justice. [ 11 ] I have to dismiss all of these arguments as well for these reasons: there is no evidence of res judicata; there is in no way by this application the opportunity re-visit or re-litigate the order made in 2000; and certainly a creditor is always entitled to collect a debt and preserve their own rights. Naturally, the amounts change over a period of time due to accrued interest. There is absolutely no evidence before me of fraud or any other conspiracy on the part of the Attorney General of Canada. [ 12 ] In my view, Mr.

Robbins has misinterpreted the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Young v. Young , March 21st, 1985. In my view, he has not raised any recognizable argument regarding abuse of process, natural justice, or bad faith.

As a result, I have to dismiss his application on those bases also. [ 13 ] I am dismissing his application to dismiss the claim. [ 14 ] I am making the following orders as well: that the matter be set for trial; there will be two hours set for court time; the issues at trial are whether there was a judgment in 2000, which I note is not denied; whether the judgment is unpaid, which I note is not denied; and whether Mr. Robbins is the correct person or party, and I note for the record that that is also not denied.

[ 15 ] The issues raised today that I have set out and are attached to the affidavit that Mr. Robbins filed on June 11, 2012 may not be re-litigated at the trial. [ 16 ] I am just going to state this for the record: I note from our court file that Mr. Robbins had notice of today's hearing set for, obviously, June 12 at 9:30 a.m.

However, he did not appear at 9:30 a.m. and it was only because the clerk of the court called him at home to remind him of this court appearance that this matter was heard today. [ 17 ] The judicial case managers will set the date for hearing. [ 18 ] Is the Attorney General seeking costs for what I would call this frivolous and vexatious application? [ 19 ] MR. RITSON: I would like to seek costs against Mr. Robbins, Your Honour. [ 20 ] THE COURT: I will allow costs. Are you prepared to speak to costs at this time? [ 21 ] MR. RITSON: As to amounts or as to -- well -- [ 22 ] THE COURT: What I will do is this.

I will allow costs and those can be raised at the trial in front of the trial judge without me being seized. [ 23 ] MR. RITSON: Yes, okay. I'm sorry, you are seized or you are not seized? [ 24 ] THE COURT: I am not seized. So the issue of costs for this hearing may be raised by the claimant at the hearing. [ 25 ] MR. RITSON: So Your Honour is not saying that costs are awarded but the -- [ 26 ] THE COURT: Oh, costs are awarded. [ 27 ] MR.

RITSON: Costs are awarded, but the amount is to be decided by -- [ 28 ] THE COURT: Yes, costs are awarded to the Attorney General of Canada, as I stated, because of the frivolous and vexatious application. The quantum of costs may be determined at the hearing of the claim. [ 29 ] GLEN ROBBINS: Your Honour, if I may.

If the costs -- if you are not seized of this and costs are to be in the cause at trial and we don't know what the outcome of the trial is, then how is it that the judge at that time is going to be able to determine costs -- that would sound like we're assuming I'm going to lose the trial. [ 30 ] THE COURT : No. It is costs of this application today, sir. [ 31 ] GLEN ROBBINS: And will this be on the -- because I'm concerned that the judge at that time may take an adverse inference from seeing this on the record. [ 32 ] THE COURT : No. Quantum only may be spoken at the trial of this matter.

And I will leave it up to the trial judge as to whether he or she wants to raise that at the beginning or at the end of the proceedings. [ 33 ] GLEN ROBBINS: Your Honour, if I may, prior to going to see trial scheduling, I'm going to be interested in filing a judicial review at the B.C.

Supreme Court of this, so I'm wondering if we can maybe put the trial off -- or at least look at the timeline of the trial - - I don't know what the dates are -- in consideration of that. [ 34 ] THE COURT : Well, we will set a date and if you have not commenced your action in Supreme Court by the hearing date you can raise that with the trial judge. [ 35 ] GLEN ROBBINS: Yes. [ 36 ] THE COURT : And it will be up the trial judge to say whether or not the trial will go ahead based on your action or inaction in the meantime. [ 37 ] GLEN ROBBINS: Yeah, I'll get that done lickety-split. [ 38 ] THE COURT : I hope so.

I will refer the parties to the judicial case manager to set two hours for hearing. [ 39 ] MR. RITSON: Just a couple of points to clarify so we don't not deal with it. I take it Your Honour is sending it straight to trial so there's not going to be an additional -- there will be no additional settlement conference or mediation or anything of that nature. It's going straight to trial. [ 40 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 41 ] MR. RITSON: If -- so that is the first point. [ 42 ] THE COURT: And thank you for reminding me. Mr.

Robbins, I want to bring your attention to Rule 20 of our Court because the trial judge may award extra penalties against you. Just so you are aware. [ 43 ] GLEN ROBBINS: About the penalties that are already in existence? [ 44 ] THE COURT: Yes. Just so you are aware, sir.

[ 45 ] GLEN ROBBINS: Yeah, I'm aware of the Rule, yeah. Thank you, Your Honour. [ 46 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 47 ] MR. RITSON: Your Honour, there is one further -- two further matters. Normally in a settlement conference I would be advising the Court that the evidence of the claimant is going to be basically by affidavit, the judgments and so forth, in other words I don't want Mr. Robbins calling to subpoena the Attorney General or subpoena our -- members of our firm or anything of that nature, so -- [ 48 ] THE COURT: No, because the issues raised today on this application may not be heard at the trial. [ 49 ] MR.

RITSON: All right. And the last thing and it's -- you may have already ordered it but I want to be sure you meant what you said and that is you were -- you were referring to the issue of waiving any excess amount over $25,000.

The judgment that we are suing on is for -- I don't have it in front of me -- $19,000 but that is exclusively in the Small Claims Court regulation, exclusive of interest, so that means that a judgment can be granted by this Court for an amount in excess of $25,000 including interest so I want to be clear that we are not waiving the total -- we are not waiving any amount because the claim is $19,000 some plus the interest plus costs, so I don't want what Your Honour said when you were talking about waiving to be taken as what we're doing -- [ 50 ] THE COURT: No.

If for some reason the principal amount was over $25,000 it would have to be waived. [ 51 ] MR. RITSON: But it's not -- but the judge -- the principal -- the judgment is $19,000 and some and that is what we're suing on and we are entitled to claim the full interest even though that brings it over $25,000. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Absolutely. Yes. [ 53 ] MR. RITSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I just want that on the record. [ 54 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 55 ] GLEN ROBBINS: The one last piece on this is real important because the -- is Your Honour suggesting that the discussions about the 1985 judgment cannot be included in trial?

Or are -- [ 56 ] THE COURT: Yes. Yes, I am. [ 57 ] GLEN ROBBINS: All right. [ 58 ] THE COURT: All of the issues that you raised this morning cannot be re-litigated at trial because they are entirely without merit and I have already ruled on that. So that is res judicata , sir. [ 59 ] GLEN ROBBINS: That remains to be seen. [ 60 ] THE COURT : So I will send you to the case manager. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)