Leigh v. Belfast Mini-Mills Ltd., 2013 NSSC 190

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Leigh v. Belfast Mini-Mills Ltd., 2013 NSSC 190 Date: 20130516 Docket: Hfx 272748 Registry: Halifax Between: Gillian Leigh, Wanda Cummings and Toltec Holdings Incorporated, carrying on business as Mabou Ridge Centre for Holistic Living Plaintiffs v. Belfast Mini-Mills Ltd. and International Spinners Ltd. Defendant DECISION Judge: The Honourable Justice J. E. Scanlan Heard: May 16, 2013, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Decision: June 21, 2013 Counsel: Gillian Leigh, Wanda Cummings, Plaintiffs, self-represented Mr. Robert K. Dickson, Q.C., Solicitor for the Defendant Mr.

Sheldon Choo, Solicitor for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia Ms. Melissa Grant, Solicitor for the Attorney General of Canada By the Court :

[ 1 ] In this case the main action started with a Notice of Action dated October 17, 2006. A Notice of Defence was filed on February 8, 2007. Discoveries of the Defendant representatives was completed October 1, 2 and 3, 2007. Discovery of Gillian Leigh commenced on January 28, 2008 but it was adjourned pending determination of the relevancy issues and Plaintiff ’ s refusal to answer questions and providing requested documentation. [ 2 ] One of the problems we have in a discovery is, discoveries are not conducted in the presence of a Judge.

That often means lawyers, or litigants, when you are self-represented litigants, try and decide for themselves what questions are relevant and what questions are proper or improper. [ 3 ] In this case it is obvious from the record, which I have reviewed extensively, that Gillian Leigh was concerned with the relevancy of some of the issues and the source materials for some of the materials forming the basis of questions. In other words, where did they get the information upon which to base those questions?

There is a complaint that some of that evidence, or background which formed the basis of the questions, was improperly obtained and the questions were irrelevant. As noted by Mr. Dickson, the statement of claim included a claim for pain and suffering. That part of the claim continues and it leaves very wide the parameters for relevancy in terms of questions. Certainly it is clear that Ms. Leigh refused to answer the questions. The matters have been adjudicated now. This file has been touched by, I am not sure how many Judges but a lot of Judges. A lot of paper has been generated on issues that are irrelevant.

There have been unsuccessful motions and appeals brought by the Plaintiffs. [ 4 ] In terms of a

summary of the proceedings, what I am going to refer to instead of going through all of the proceedings day by day that are included in the file, I am simply going to refer to pages 4 to 9 inclusive of the Defendant ’ s brief. That has a

summary of the motions applications and appeals relevant to this motion. As I have reviewed the file and reviewed those motions, I am satisfied in terms of determination as to whether or not the case should be dismissed, all of those items as noted by the Defendants numbered 1 through 23 are in fact relevant to the issue before the Court. That is to whether or not this case should be dismissed. [ 5 ]

Summary of Motions, Applications and Appeals Relevant to this Motion: 1. Notice of Action (2006 Hfx. No. 272748) - October 17, 2006; Notice of Defence filed February 8, 2007; 2. Discoveries of Defendant representatives completed October 1, 2 and 3, 2007; 3. Discovery of Gillian Leigh commenced January 28, 2008; adjourned pending determination of relevancy issues and refusal to answer questions or provide relevant documentation; 4.

Interlocutory Motion (Application Inter Partes) dated March 20, 2008, filed on behalf of McInnes Cooper for order removing them as solicitor of record and a sealing order of motion documents (TAB “ 3", Affidavit of Ian Brown); order granted; 5. Motion to convert Action to Application dated March 9, 2010 brought by Plaintiffs (TAB “ 4", Affidavit of Ian Brown); withdrawn. 6. Appearance Day Motion dated April 6, 2010 seeking compliance with undertakings (TAB “ 5", Affidavit of Ian Brown); dismissed; 7.

Appearance day motion dated April 8, 2010 by Plaintiffs seeking compliance with undertakings (TAB “ 6", Affidavit of Ian Brown); dismissed; 8. Notice of Motion dated April 26, 2010 brought by Plaintiffs to strike defence, prohibit further discoveries, bar further motions by Defendants; convert action to application; obtain

summary judgment (TAB “ 7", Affidavit of Ian Brown);

9. May 4, 2010 Chambers Hearing before Justice Arthur W. Pickup to set dates for the various motions of the Plaintiffs - motions scheduled to be heard July 20 and July 21, 2010; 10. Notice of Motion dated May 6, 2010 (TAB “ 8", Affidavit of Ian Brown) - motion by Defendants for order requiring further attendance at discovery, sufficient answers to questions and compliance with undertakings.

A preliminary motion was then filed by Plaintiffs to have the Defendants May 6, 2010 motion dismissed on the basis that information and documentation contained in the Defendant ’ s affidavit was confidential and privileged and improperly accessed. Justice Robertson denied the plaintiff ’ s motion and a blanket request for sealing files was rejected at a pre-hearing conference (see Cummings v. Belfast Mini-Mills Ltd., 2011 NSCA 56 , [2011] N.S.J.

No. 304 - Book of Authorities, TAB “ 5"); The Defendant ’ s motion was adjourned to July 20, 2010 at request of the Plaintiffs to be heard in conjunction with the multiple outstanding motions of the Plaintiffs (Defendant ’ s motion ultimately granted - see November 22-23, 2010 Motion Hearing before Justice Patrick Duncan, discussed below - TAB “ 18", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 11. June 21, 2010 Notice of Motion for an injunction filed by Plaintiffs - scheduled to be heard on July 20, 2010; the Plaintiffs failed to serve the Defendants and motion was dismissed (oral decision of Justice LeBlanc, July 18, 2010); 12.

June 30, 2010 Appearance Day Notice brought by Plaintiffs seeking order prohibiting solicitor for the Defendants from introducing documents in the proceeding (TAB “ 9", Affidavit of Ian Brown); dismissed by Smith, A.C.J. as not appropriate motion for Appearance Day; 13. July 18, 2010 pre-hearing conference before Justice Arthur J. LeBlanc - the Plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the various motions 3 days prior to the scheduled July 20, 2010 hearing date. Oral decision of Justice LeBlanc to adjourn all motions to November 22 and 23, 2010 (Plaintiffs motions to convert, for

summary judgment, for an injunction, to strike defence, for an order no further discovery permitted and Defendants motion for further discovery and disclosure); by decision dated January 25, 2011, Justice LeBlanc ordered costs payable by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants in the amount of $1,000.00 in any event of the cause payable at the end of the proceeding (TAB “ 12", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 14.

November 22-23, 2010 Motion Hearing before Justice Patrick Duncan - in a detailed written decision dated July 20, 2011 (TAB “ 18", Affidavit of Ian Brown), Justice Duncan dismissed all motions brought by the Plaintiffs, and allowed the Defendants motion in respect to further discovery of both Plaintiffs, answering specific questions by the Plaintiffs and requiring document production from the Plaintiffs. The Order required Plaintiffs to both attend for discovery, produce specified documents and answer specified questions; 15.

July 21, 2011 Motion (by correspondence) brought by Plaintiffs to ban publication of Justice Duncan ’ s July 20, 2011 decision (Tab “ 23", Affidavit of Ian Brown). This motion to ban was dismissed by written decision dated July 25, 2011 (TAB “ 24", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 16. August 16, 2011 Decision of Justice Duncan on costs of all Motions; by written decision dated August 16, 2011, Justice Duncan ordered the Plaintiffs to pay to the Defendants costs and disbursements of $972.53 forthwith and pay to the Defendants $3,000 on or before January 31, 2012 (TAB “ 26", Affidavit of Ian Brown).

These costs have never been paid. 17. September 26, 2011 an Order reflecting Justice Duncan ’ s decisions and costs order was issued (TAB “ 26", Affidavit of Ian Brown); Plaintiff ’ s Appeal of these decisions and this Order was dismissed on May 31, 2012 (TAB “ 40", Affidavit of Ian Brown). The costs awarded have never been paid. 18. Notice of Application (2010 Hfx. No. 333144) - July 22, 2010 (re-issued September 3, 2010 at Appearance Day) - filed by Applicants Wanda Cummings and Gillian Leigh, seeking an injunction to prohibit the Defendants in 2006 Hfx.

No. 272748 from introducing documents from unrelated proceedings in that action (TAB “ 10", Affidavit of Ian Brown); a. Notice of contest filed (September 17, 2010) (TAB “ 11", Affidavit of Ian Brown)

b. August 26, 2010 Appearance Day Notice by Plaintiffs seeking an order for an injunction and an order requiring the solicitor for the Defendant to file an affidavit explaining how access to documents was obtained (TAB “ 13", Affidavit of Ian Brown); c. Notice of Motion to amend brought by Applicants (September 20, 2010) for order adding Boyne Clarke as respondents, requiring return of telephone accounts and requiring Respondent solicitor to file an affidavit explaining how he obtained allegedly confidential materials (TAB “ 14", Affidavit of Ian Brown); d. December 29, 2010 decision of Justice C.

Richard Coughlan dismissing the amended Application with costs of $1,000 payable by the Applicants to the Respondents (TAB “ 15", Affidavit of Ian Brown); e.

Numerous requests for payment of costs in 2011 and 2012 (correspondence dated June 9, 2011; June 13, 2011; August 26, 2011; June 19, 2012; June 20, 2012; Numerous responses from Plaintiffs threatening appeal to Supreme Court of Canada and refusing to pay costs - examples include June 9, 2011 email; June 13, 2011 email advising a SCC appeal would be filed within next few days; email dated August 28, 2011 advising they “ ...would not be forwarding any monies to you of any kind and in any event ” (TAB “ 22", Affidavit of Ian Brown); f.

Execution order dated June 13, 2011 for $1,032.87 issued by prothonotary (TAB “ 45", Affidavit of Ian Brown); g. Discovery Subpoena in Aid of Execution (issued September 2, 2011 by prothonotary) served on Plaintiffs, with discovery examination scheduled for September 22, 2011 (TAB “ 30", Affidavit of Ian Brown); h. Transcripts of voice mail messages from Wanda Cummings dated September 6, 2011 threatening contempt proceedings against Mr. Dickson for his conduct and that they “ ...are no longer willing to take your abuse... ” , that Mr.

Dickson ’ s conduct was “ despicable ” and that they would be serving SCC appeal papers (TAB “ 31", Affidavit of Ian Brown); I Email advice dated September 8, 2011 from Gillian Leigh that she was unavailable on September 22 but would be available the week of October 2-8 to attend discovery examination (TAB “ 31", AFFIDAVIT OF Ian Brown); j. Correspondence dated September 9, 2011 to Gillian Leigh and Wanda Cummings confirming a date of October 6, 2011 for discovery of Gillian Leigh (TAB “ 31", Affidavit of Ian Brown); k.

Email from Gillian Leigh dated September 14, 2011 confirming she would attend on October 6, 2011 (TAB “ 31", Affidavit of Ian Brown); l. Email correspondence from Wanda Cummings dated September 9, 2011 advising that neither would be attending discovery (TAB “ 31", Affidavit of Ian Brown); m. Correspondence from Gillian Leigh dated October 6, 2011 confirming her refusal to attend for discovery examination apparently because of pending appeal in matter C.A. 353382 despite the appeal in this matter having been dismissed on June 9, 2011 and no SCC appeal commenced (TAB “ 31", Affidavit of Ian Brown); n.

To date, the Plaintiffs have contemptuously refused to obey the Subpoena nor have they paid the costs ordered by Justice Coughlan despite having the appeal of that decision dismissed on June 9, 2011 (see below); 19. Notice of Appeal (2010 C.A. #341131) - appeal of December 29, 2010 decision of Justice Coughlan in 2010 Hfx. No. 333144 (TAB “ 16", Affidavit of Ian Brown);

a. Notice of Motion dated December 13, 2010 to introduce fresh evidence and consolidate hearings of other appeals (TAB “ 17", Affidavit of Ian Brown); b. Notice of Motion dated January 21, 2011 to introduce fresh evidence (TAB “ 19", Affidavit of Ian Brown); c. Appeal heard May 24, 2011 and appeal dismissed without costs by decision of Justice David P. S. Farrar (Fichaud, J.A. and Bryson, JJ. A. concurring) (TAB “ 20", Affidavit of Ian Brown); (Order for Judgement dated June 9, 2011 - (TAB “ 21", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 20.

Notice of Appeal (2011 C.A. #353382) - August 2, 2011 Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiffs of decisions of Justice Patrick Duncan of July 20, July 25 and August 16, 2011, as per order dated September 26, 2011 (TAB “ 25", Affidavit of Ian Brown); a. September 1, 2011 motion for direction removed from docket because of Appellant ’ s failure to file certificate of readiness; b. October 5, 2011 Amended Notice of Appeal filed by appellants as well as certificate of readiness (TAB “ 33", Affidavit of Ian Brown); c.

November 24, 2011 motion for directions before Oland, J.A. with Appellants requesting permission to file appeal book electronically on basis of their impecuniosity; motion for directions adjourned without date, with directions to the Appellant to file affidavit evidence as to impecuniosity d. May 12, 2012 Notice of Motion by registrar to dismiss action (TAB “ 37", Affidavit of Ian Brown); e.

Numerous letters sent on December 7, December 16, December 22, 2011, January 13, January 23, January 24, February 6, February 23, February 29, March 14, March 22 and May 14, 2012 to Appellants by Respondent solicitor requesting the appellants to file affidavits and perfect the appeal (TABS “ 34" AND “ 35", Affidavit of Ian Brown); e. May 14, 2012 Registrar ’ s motion pursuant to CPR 90.43 to dismiss appeal for failure to perfect appeal - motion heard May 31, 2012 and appeal dismissed by order of Justice Duncan R. Beveridge (TAB “ 37", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 21. Notice of Motion (2006 Hfx.

No. 272748) dated March 9, 2012 by Plaintiffs seeking order for Defendants to comply with undertakings and answer demand for particulars; Motion dismissed by Order of Justice Kevin Coady dated May 30, 2012 with costs of $300.00 payable by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants forthwith; (TABS “ 36" AND “ 39", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 22. Execution Orders in respect to all cost orders were issued on June 13, 2011 and July 19, 2012 and were served on the Plaintiffs (TAB “ 45", Affidavit of Ian Brown); 23.

Various correspondence and communications with Plaintiffs between June 9, 2011 and March 13, 2013 requesting compliance with orders (including payment of costs), attempted scheduling of discoveries, production of documents, etc. (examples found at TABS 34,35,43,45,48 and 49, Affidavit of Ian Brown).

[ 6 ] Superimposed upon that is the fact this Court has made a number of orders which have not been complied with by the Plaintiff. Not just orders for costs but orders in terms of discoveries. As I listened to Ms. Cummings here today, I am satisfied that her position is that she would be prepared to, and Ms. Leigh would be prepared to, attend at a discovery to answer questions which they think are relevant. That is not the way it works. You do not get to decide which questions you are going to answer and which questions you are not going to answer.

To speed the process up and to make it work effectively you were told that in many cases people answer questions without admitting the relevancy or admissibility. It allows the process to continue. I hear you as saying you will only go and answer questions that you think are relevant and admissible. That is not the way it works. You didn ’ t use those words but I was asking you repeatedly, are you prepared to go to discovery and answer the questions.

The replies kept coming back to, there are some things that are not admissible and are not relevant. [ 7 ] I am satisfied that certainly the process has been frustrated. It is frustrating, no doubt, for you as Plaintiffs and I hear you loud and clear saying, look we have mills that are not working. The Court has never heard the case. The most unfortunate part of this case is - and maybe it is because you are self-represented and maybe it would have happened whether you had a lawyer or not.

For you as individual plaintiffs or representatives of corporate plaintiffs - and I say corporate, I am not sure what the status is of Mabou Ridge Centre for Holistic Living. I don ’ t know if that is a company or a proprietorship or what it is. It is not for you to decide on your own what you are prepared to answer in terms of questions. I am not satisfied you are prepared to go beyond what you decide is relevant and admissible. Nor am I satisfied that you are going to execute any appeals (to the Supreme Court of Canada) in an appropriate time frame or to execute those appeals at all.

You say until we finish our appeals we don ’ t have the money for them now, or there is something standing in our way, or somebody didn ’ t deal with it. I am not satisfied that you are going to in any way, shape, or form, proceed expeditiously and effectively with appealing any decisions beyond what has been done today. Nor are you prepared to comply with the Orders, including the Orders in place. [ 8 ] The Orders of costs are relevant in the sense that the Defendant has been successful on many, many fronts in terms of resisting applications or succeeding with their own applications.

As they succeed different Judges of this Court have said; look, oh by the way, you owe money because of what you ’ ve done. [ 9 ] As the matter comes before the Court today, I am satisfied that money has not been paid. The Defendants continue to be exposed to what may or may not be, at the end of the day, on the substantive issue as to whether or not these mills work. At the end of the day they continue to be exposed to the risk that you, standing up here today say you are impecunious. You say you can ’ t necessarily pay the costs related to appeals.

You obviously haven ’ t paid the costs as ordered by the Court, $6,700.00 outstanding as of now. [ 10 ] As I look at the costs that have been mounting as against the Plaintiffs by the Defendant, I say in terms of the process what do you have to lose as compared to them? They are sitting there saying look we have a valid defence, just as you are saying you have valid claim. They are saying we have a valid defence, we would like to get it to trial and we would like to get it done within the terms of the rules.

But it is not getting there and, by the way, we as Defendants, according to their arguments, keep getting orders for costs and they are not paying them and they are telling us they are impecunious and we probably never will get the money. [ 11 ] I am going to deal with the issue of the costs first. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before the Court under Rule 45(3) to suggest that this matter cannot be allowed to proceed without security for costs and payment of the costs that are outstanding in full to-date.

I am satisfied there should be an order which says that all outstanding judgments, including any costs awarded that I might make today, should be paid in full before there is any further steps in this proceeding. In addition, I am satisfied there should be a payment into Court in the amount of $30,000.00 which is subject to review in the future depending on how this process unfolds. In other words, if you continue wasting money on applications that are inappropriate or unsuccessful it may be that the $30,000.00 gets used up and there ’ s another requirement to revisit the issue of costs again.

I am satisfied that should be the order of the Court at the end of the day in terms of the cost issue. [ 12 ] I say that and rule on the issue of costs because I am not necessarily satisfied this is the end of the proceeding. No matter what I rule on the substantive application on the abuse of process, I have no doubt in my mind that the Plaintiffs would consider this Court nothing but a stepping stone where they file another appeal and maybe perfect it and maybe not. Having said that I am satisfied the order for costs is appropriate. All of the requirements under Rule 45(3) have been met.

Certainly there is evidence through the existing outstanding judgments to convince this Court that this matter should not be allowed to proceed without payment of those costs and security for future costs.

[ 13 ] In terms of the abuse of process application, I refer for a moment to a decision, a recent decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Chignecto Central Regional School Board and the Attorney General of Canada. It was dated May 2, 2013 and it is cited as 2013 NSCA 59 . A decision of Justice Saunders. Some of his comments are appropriate in relation to this case. I might note that case was followed very shortly thereafter by another decision of Justice Saunders on an individual by the name of Mr. MacDonald. I also dealt with the same Mr.

MacDonald a couple of days later on another case and applied both the Doncaster and the Court of Appeal decision in MacDonald as well. So there is lots of authority and decisions going to be coming from this Court , I expect, based on the Doncaster decision.

This Court will be handing down lots of decisions dealing with actions where the Court has a great deal of concern as to how the actions are unfolding and where they are going. [ 14 ] Justice Saunders said at page 14: Litigants, self-represented or not, with legitimate interests at stake will be treated with respect and will quickly come to realize that judges, lawyers and court staff are prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate their needs, to explain procedures that may seem foreign, and to ensure that the merits of their disputes will be heard.

They and their cases will be seen as the raison d ’etre for access to justice. [ 15 ] Ms. Cummings and Ms. Leigh that was why I was taking the time to explain to you this morning some of the current concerns I had. I wanted to make sure that you understood the substance of the Defendants application as to how it could impact in such a drastic way the issue as to whether or not you would ever get a Court to hear about, in the proper forum, these mills and whether or not they worked. It is a shame that all of this other stuff has gotten in the way. As I look at the file it is not all the fault of the Defendants.

There is lots of blame to go around. Just as I pointed out to you this morning, I don ’ t know why you would, at the last minute, get the Provincial and Federal Attorney Generals involved in this matter. It will do nothing but slow down the process. Waste more paper. As I look through the file, there have been many, many things that occurred in this file that should never have occurred. [ 16 ] If you had counsel some of the things that occurred - and it was made clear by other Judges - you cannot do some of the things you did. The personal attacks on Mr. Dickson would not be acceptable if you were the lawyer.

It is simply not acceptable. They are all distractions. The Court wants to bend over backwards to make sure that people have a chance to have a trial on issues that deserve trials. [ 17 ] Justice Saunders went on starting at paragraph 46 to say: Litigants, self-represented or not, with a different agenda designed to wreak havoc on the system by a succession of endless, mindless or mind-numbing paper or electronic filings, or meant to drive a spouse or opposite party to distraction or despair or financial ruin will quickly come to realize that the Court’s patience, tolerance and largesse have worn thin.

They and their cases will be seen as an affront to justice and summarily shown the door. More often than not, the individuals in this latter group whom I would dub as “self-serving litigants” leave a trail of unpaid judgments and costs orders in their wake. Judges will not sit idly by as the finite resources of their courts are hijacked by people with computer skills or unlimited time on their hands, at the expense of worthy matters, waiting patiently in the queue for a hearing.

Faux litigants will be exposed, soon earning the tag “vexatious litigant” or “paper terrorist” whose offerings deserve a sharp rebuff and rebuke.. Justice Saunders said: Over the past two months I have encountered several such cases. Their number is mounting. I find that troubling. The Bench, the practicing Bar and the public should be concerned. This trespass upon legitimate advocacy is not in the public interest. In the short term it frustrates the efficient passage and completion of litigation. In the long term it erodes and denigrates confidence in and respect for the administration of justice.

It defeats a system of dispute resolution managed and overseen by people who are doing the best they can to serve the public in a way that respects and follows the law, and produces a result that satisfies the primary object of the Rules which is to provide “for the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding”.

[ 18 ] That is an essential part of our Civil Procedure Rules . One of the

preamble sections. [ 19 ] Justice Saunders notes: The Rules are provided to provide the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding. [ 20 ] This action has not been inexpensive. It has not been speedy. It is to the point, in terms of the stuff that the Plaintiff is throwing at the Court and at the Defendant, it is not just. It has come to the point where it is abusive. The Plaintiffs have not shown any intention to comply with the Orders of the Courts in terms of costs.

They have not shown an intention to attend at discovery and to answer the questions that are put to them unless they are questions of their choosing and their acceptance. They have not abided by any existing Orders of the Judges of this Court, relying on the fact or assertion that they have or are going to appeal. Until such time as they can execute their appeal they are not about to comply with the Court Orders and that is not the way it works. [ 21 ] When this Court, or a Judge of this Court, makes an Order, unless it is overturned or stayed by a Court of Appeal, it is to be complied with.

That is the way it is. To rule otherwise would mean that our rules become useless. People who really want and need and deserve access to the Courts and the Courts processes, to have their disputes tried, would be waiting in queues that get longer, and longer, and longer. They have bona fide complaints and they need the Courts assistance. Yet we see our dockets getting longer, and longer, and longer, because many cases require many, many appearances. Perhaps our process allows people to make applications perhaps in some cases even where people are acting irresponsibly or contrary to the Rules.

A litigant is forced to make application to deal with those inappropriate responses or behaviours on the other side. [ 22 ] As a result we see files like this that are three boxes full. When you look at it in terms of how it should be prosecuted, it probably could have all been contained within two of these files, for the whole case. Two of these books on my desk. Instead I have book, after book, after book, and the record is three boxes full and the Plaintiff tells me look it is so important you should look at the DVD ’ s too.

There ’ s even more there. [ 23 ] I reviewed enough material in these files and looked at the applications and the outcomes and where it has gone to determine how this file has progressed and it hasn ’ t. The file is still stuck at a point where you haven ’ t had discoveries completed. Why? It is because of the actions and the approach taken by the Plaintiffs, specifically Ms. Cummings and Ms. Leigh. I say it is unfortunate with the Court rules we have cases like what has gone on here. There is a point in time when your actions have amounted to abuse which is not acceptable, it cannot be tolerated by this Court.

Your actions have added unnecessary expense. There is no sign of it ending. Ms. Cummings, your response to most of my questions is, well we ’ re going to appeal and those Orders of the Court we ’ re not abiding by them because they ’ re going to be appealed. There is no end in sight. This has to be put to rest. [ 24 ] This Court and the Court ’ s processes cannot be used to simply require of the Defendants that they keep spending money, throwing good money after bad, not getting the assistance of the Court in putting this to an end by enforcing the Court rules.

If we do not put an end to it, we are allowing the Plaintiffs to flaunt the Court Orders and the Court rules. Whether you are agreeing with them or not, you have to comply with the rules and orders. It means you lose your right sooner or later to use this Court ’ s processes and this Court ’ s resources, and this Court ’ s time; asking for this Court to help you in adjudicating what you say is a valid claim.

If you are going to ask this Court to assist you in pursuing a claim as against the Defendant who says you don ’ t have a valid claim, then you should at least look at the Court ’ s rules and comply with the Court ’ s rules, whether they be Civil Procedure Rules or Rules of Evidence or any other Rules. That you have not done. [ 25 ] I am satisfied that this case, as noted by Justice Saunders, is one that should be, in his words, summarily shown the door. I am satisfied that this application should succeed.

As I said, I am not going to go through and recite in detail all of the various proceedings that have gone on before the Court but I adopt the

summary as set out in Mr. Dickson ’ s brief, pages 4 to 9, points 1 through 23. [ 26 ] There will be an order for costs in the amount of $1,200.00. That is added to the $6,700.00 odd that is outstanding already pursuant to the Judgments. It will be paid in addition to the $6,700.00 and the $30,000.00 payment into Court prior to any further proceedings being filed with this Court on this action.

[ 27 ] Mr. Dickson will prepare the Order. J. 06/20/2013