John Murphy de jure Business Manager of UA Local 170 of Journeymen v. Apprentices of, 2003 BCSC 507

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Murphy v. Shortt et al, 2003 BCSC 507 Date: 20030328 Docket: S025713 Registry: Vancouver Between: John Murphy de jure Business Manager of UA Local 170 of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada . de jure trustee, Beneficiary of P.S. Holdings Ltd. and Pension Plan Plaintiffs And Morley Shortt, Admitted sole member, Bare Trustee P.S. Holdings Ltd., the Union Funds Property. Theo Arsenault Plumbers Pension Plan Administration Shortt, Moore, Arsenault and Associates Ltd. The Firm, including Sheila A.

Temple, Solicitor for P.S. Holdings Ltd. Anne St. Elois. Defendants - and - Docket: S027131 Registry: Vancouver Between: John Murphy Plaintiff And P.S. Holdings Ltd. and the Trustees, Morley Shortt, Ray Callard, John Wynne, Lance Yearley, Cal Kinsey, Joe Shayler, Plumbers Pension Plan, Trustees, John Wynne, Gerry Boe, Ann St. Elois, #1300 - 1140 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC.

Bruce Laughton of Laughton and Company, agent for Martin Maddaloni President, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in the United States and Canada . #1090 Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC. WCB Trustees/Officers of the Record and Ralph McGinn

re files IC93097378, 2001-D-157 Nominal Trustee, P.O. Box 5350 Stn., Terminal, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5L5. Russ St. Elois Jr., WCB Employee Representative, Plumbers Union, Sabrina Ali and Associates, Douglas Page #508 - 1190 Melville Street, Vancouver, BC. Defendants Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Humphries Reasons for Judgment On his own behalf J. Murphy Counsel for all defendants except P.S. Holdings & Anne St. Elois in S025713; Shortt, Laughton, Sabrina Ali & Associates in S027131 G. Ritchey Counsel for WCB and Ralph McGinn L.

Courtenay Date and Place of Hearing: February 14 & March 5, 2003 Vancouver, B.C. [ 1 ] Mr. Murphy has many actions before the court, and numerous outstanding motions in most of them. To set out the substance of the various claims is not necessary for the motions presently before the court, but I will outline briefly what appears to be at the heart of Mr. Murphy's complaints, as I interpret them from the petition (S027131). [ 2 ] Mr.

Murphy, a plumber, was at one time a member of the Building Trades Division Local 170 ("Local 170") of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in the United States and Canada (the "Union"). In 1991, elections were held to fill positions as officers of the Union. Mr. Murphy takes issue with the elections, and the subsequent interference with his rights which he says have flowed through to other elections since then. In 1997, Mr. Murphy alleges he was improperly fined and expelled from the Union. [ 3 ] Apparently, one of the defendants in the petition, Russ St.

Elois, was elected to an official position. Mr. Murphy alleges Mr. St. Elois misrepresented his membership rights to the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") resulting in a loss of benefits from 1995- 1997. He also alleges WCB unlawfully removed their Board of Governors. Mr. Murphy also alleges that subsequent to a 1993 injury, he was re-injured and was denied benefits until 1999. [ 4 ] In November 1994, Mr. Murphy, then represented by counsel, commenced action C946213 (the injunction action). In January 2001, Mr. Murphy, represented by Ms.

Ali, brought an application to amend the statement of claim in that action to include a claim for damages. That application was dismissed on January 10, 2001 by Sigurdson J. [ 5 ] On March 6, 2001, Mr. Murphy commenced an action (SO11208) against the Union and various members of the Union claiming damages arising from his alleged wrongful expulsion from the Union.

The firm of Shortt, Moore and Arsenault (SMA) represented the locally resident Union defendants; Bruce Laughton represented the other Union defendants, and began to act for them in the injunction action as well. [ 6 ] Certain default judgments had been taken in the injunction action. All defendants successfully applied before Williamson J. on February 22, 2002, to have them set aside and to have the action declared moot. [ 7 ] Mr. Murphy appealed that decision and sought indigent status. His application for indigent status was dismissed by Rowles J.A. [ 8 ] Mr.

Murphy filed a writ and a petition and sought indigent status on both. Both his applications were dismissed by Master Scarth. [ 9 ] In August of 2002, Mr. Murphy brought six notices of motion in the injunction action which had already been dismissed. He also brought a notice of motion in the damages action in respect of a declaratory judgment in the US Federal Court. Those applications were dismissed by Edwards J. on October 18, 2002. [ 10 ] Meanwhile, Mr. Murphy had filed the writ of summons which is presently before me (SO25713) and Edwards J. granted him

indigent status on it. [ 11 ] Mr. Murphy appealed the dismissals, and his application for indigent status was dismissed by Prowse J.A. [ 12 ] On December 24, 2002, Mr. Murphy commenced the petition which is presently before me (S027131), almost identical to that filed April 2, 2002 on which he had been denied indigent status. He obtained indigent status on the new petition. In this petition, Mr. Murphy appears to be seeking judicial review or some other form of relief under the Workers Compensation Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492 (the " WCA "). [ 13 ] On January 2, 2003, Mr.

Murphy sought to have the injunction action, the damages action, the writ and the petition consolidated. On January 16, Williamson J. adjourned that application pending hearing of the applications presently before me. [ 14 ] On January 17, 21, and 22, Mr. Murphy filed other motions in the petition action. These have all been adjourned. [ 15 ] After hearing this history and Mr. Murphy's commentary on the points being made by Mr. Ritchey, I granted Mr. Ritchey's motion for an order under

section 18 of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 433 requiring Mr. Murphy to obtain leave of the court before instituting further legal proceedings. [ 16 ] Mr. Murphy immediately sought leave from me to have Mr. Ritchey held in contempt. I told him to bring a motion with supporting material and I would consider if he could file it. I have not yet seen the motion, but events have overtaken the matter and it will be heard, if brought, by the case management judge. [ 17 ] I heard argument from Mr. Ritchey and Ms. Courtenay on their motions on February 14, 2003. There was not time for Mr.

Murphy to respond, which he said would take a day. Mr. Murphy had obtained the dates of March 4 and 5 from the Registry for some sort of hearing involving a number of counsel. I said I would assume the role of case management judge on all these matters, and we would use March 5 to finish the present motion. March 4th would not be required for this purpose. [ 18 ] Mr. Murphy had fourteen motions of his own which he insisted had to be heard before the motions set before me on February 14, 2003. I asked Mr.

Murphy to take a few minutes to organize these motions and hand them up to me so I could go through each of them and understand what they were. There are motions filed in S025713 to strike out the defence and consolidate with S011288, in C946213 to strike out a countersuit, and in S011288 for

summary judgement and a restraining order. These were the motions adjourned by Williamson J. until the motions before me could be heard. Then there are motions in S027131 and S011288 for

summary judgment and other interim orders, a motion to register an order from the U.S. federal court in C946213, and a motion in S027131 for delivery of files which resulted in an order from a Master that access to Mr. Murphy's files be provided by Mr. Ritchey in his office. There are other praecipes for motions, the substance of which is not clear. [ 19 ] Mr. Murphy also asked for court funding to copy his affidavits for the 14 motions he wishes to bring. I said I would deal with this on March 5, although this too was not pursued that day. I also said I would hear Mr.

Murphy on March 5 as to why the motions brought by Mr. Ritchey and Ms. Courtenay could not proceed until his fourteen motions were dealt with. [ 20 ] Two judges who had previously heard applications on these files had recommended that a case management judge be appointed. Coincidentally, on February 14, 2003, as I was hearing these motions and had said I would assume the role of case management judge, formal case management assignment through the Chief Justice's office was taking place, and the Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman was assigned to manage this matter. [ 21 ] On March 5, Mr.

Murphy took objection to my hearing the rest of the motions, insisting that Groberman J. was seized of all matters. As well, when I told Mr. Murphy I expected him to make his arguments in the space of the day which he had said he needed, he became extremely angry and insisted I was obstructing his access to justice. [ 22 ] Nevertheless, I heard Mr. Murphy's submissions on the motions before me, which took up more than a full court day. Although he had filed no affidavit material on these motions, Mr.

Murphy asked me to refer to a voluminous affidavit filed in action S011288 (which I ordered from the Registry), a large book of authorities and many loose pages of indexes from the Canadian Abridgement and other source books. I accepted these documents after allowing Mr. Ritchey and Ms. Courtenay to examine them. MOTION OF LAUGHTON AND SHORTT ON S027131 (PETITION) [ 23 ] Mr. Ritchey seeks to strike out the petition as against Morley Shortt and Bruce Laughton pursuant to Rule 19(24), and to dismiss the writ as against SMA and the members of the firm under Rule 18. [ 24 ] The petition is concerned with Mr.

Murphy's complaint that the Union (Local 170) has allowed unqualified applicants for memberships as journeymen. Mr. Shortt, who acted for some of the defendants in previous proceedings brought by Mr. Murphy, is also alleged not to have complied with the Union constitution in this regard and others. Mr. Murphy alleges that Mr. Shortt's firm "lacked jurisdiction" to represent the defendants, and also says Mr. Shortt and a Mr. Yearley are nominal trustees for P.S. Holdings and the Union funds. Mr.

Laughton is alleged to have something to do with an unspecified conflict of interest and to be a nominal trustee for the "United Association." [ 25 ] Mr. Murphy objects to Mr. Ritchey appearing on this motion, saying he has no standing and should be disbarred. He is particularly concerned that Mr. Ritchey is appearing for P.S. Holdings, as he says Mr. Ritchey has a conflict. However, Mr. Ritchey is not appearing for P.S. Holdings. Although Mr. Murphy says he does not believe that, I accept that Mr. Ritchey is appearing on behalf of the defendants for which he is on record. Mr.

Ritchey is a member of the bar and has standing to represent those defendants. [ 26 ] Mr. Murphy also says the defendants should be compelled to provide him with counsel. There is a lawyer prepared to act on

his behalf if he is paid, and that lawyer wrote a letter to the court saying he would appear if directed to do so. At a previous hearing before Garson J., she refused to direct that the lawyer attend on Mr. Murphy's behalf. [ 27 ] Mr. Murphy says Mr. Ritchey should not be allowed to act on this matter as he has obstructed Mr. Murphy's access to the file over which his former solicitor, Sabrina Ali, has filed a solicitor's lien for non-payment of accounts. Mr. Ritchey states that he has told Mr. Murphy he can come to the office, look at the file when Mr.

Ritchey is there and obtain copies of any documents for 5 cents a page. Apparently there have been scenes in the office. In my experience with Mr. Murphy over two days in court, I have observed how quickly he becomes angry and frustrated over what he perceives to be unfairness and injustice. Mr. Ritchey's conditions seem reasonable and I told Mr. Murphy that is how access to the file should be accomplished. This is, of course, subject to further order of the court. [ 28 ] Mr. Murphy says Mr. Ritchey deliberately fails to recognize that Mr. Laughton is being sued as agent for a Mr.

Maddaloni, and not in his personal capacity, as Mr. Laughton would be subject to 44 years in prison in the United States if he entered an appearance as agent. I do not understand what Mr. Murphy means by this, and if Mr. Laughton is not being sued in his personal capacity, then Mr. Murphy suffers no prejudice by having the action struck against Mr. Laughton personally. [ 29 ] As for Mr. Shortt, I have examined the pleadings and my notes of Mr. Murphy's submissions to see if I can obtain the glimmerings of a cause of action, or at least understand why Mr. Shortt is a party to the petition.

I have been unable to do so. I have also read Mr. Murphy's lengthy affidavit filed in S011288. From that, I gather that Mr. Shortt is the solicitor for P.S. Holdings, which Mr. Murphy describes as a company owned by Local 170 whose purpose is to administer trust funds and other matters on behalf of Local 170. Mr. Murphy says Mr. Shortt holds P.S. Holdings in trust for Local 170 of which Mr. Murphy is a member. Therefore, according to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Shortt is in breach of his fiduciary duty to Mr.

Murphy and in a conflict of interest. [ 30 ] There is nothing in the petition that discloses a cause of action against Mr. Shortt and Mr. Laughton. The petition is dismissed against them pursuant to Rule 19(24). MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS (EXCEPT P.S.HOLDINGS AND ANNE ST. ELOIS) ON S025713 (THE WRIT) [ 31 ] The writ and statement of claim contain a number of bald assertions of causes of action. There are no facts pleaded, though the facts are stated to be in "the attached appendages" (none of which are attached, although it is possible this refers to the extra material Mr.

Murphy asked me to look at from S011288) and in the files of Sabrina Ali and Associates. The statement of claim seeks the files, a number of clarifications including one that the Firm (undefined, but I presume SMA) is in a conflict of interest and lacked jurisdiction to represent the "defendant trustees", unnamed. [ 32 ] Insofar as I can discern the substance of the writ and statement of claim, which is directed in large part against the firm SMA and its members, it appears to be concerned with allegations of conflict of interest and breach of some sort of trust relationship having to do with Union pension funds.

An affidavit filed by Theo Arsenault deposes that the firm and its lawyers never acted for Mr. Murphy, but only for opposing parties. I think I understood Mr. Murphy's argument to be that the firm, whom he says is acting as trustees for the Union and the pension funds, is compelled never to act against Mr. Murphy, and in fact to act on his behalf. This would mean that once sued by Mr. Murphy, the Union and its members could not obtain legal representation unless those lawyers also acted for Mr. Murphy.

This does not make sense. [ 33 ] There are no facts pled in the statement of claim and I can discern no causes of action in this pleading as against the defendant lawyers. Action S025713 is dismissed against them pursuant to Rule 18 as it does not disclose a triable issue. WCB'S MOTION [ 34 ] Ms. Courtenay applies under Rule 19(24) to strike out the petition as against the WCB and Mr.

McGinn, CEO of the WCB, on the basis that it does not disclose a reasonable claim, is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing or proceeding. [ 35 ] Briefly, it is alleged by Mr. Murphy that WCB ignored his complaints of misrepresentation by the Union to fraudulently deny him benefits. Mr. Murphy seeks a restraining order against WCB's denial of benefits, and a declaration that they acted vindictively, are ultra vires their enabling statute, and in breach of the common law.

He seeks an order that the Board of Governors be reinstated and leave to file a class action against them. He also seeks an order for benefits, reimbursement of missing pay periods, retraining and various other declarations. [ 36 ] The petition purports to be brought pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedures Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 (" JRPA " ). Mr. Murphy has not filed an affidavit in support of his petition, although he purports to rely on the extensive material he filed in action SO11288.

No particular decision of the WCB is identified as being the subject of judicial review, nor are any grounds or jurisdictional error set out. Mr. Murphy says these things would be obvious to anyone who has read the file, by which he means, I believe, his WCB file, not the court file. [ 37 ] The main thrust of Mr.

Murphy's submission with respect to the WCB is that they have lost their legal identity through amending or failing to properly amend their enabling legislation, are consequently a criminal organization, and have perpetrated a fraud on the workers of British Columbia. [ 38 ] From this, it might be assumed that Mr. Murphy is challenging any decision the WCB has made about him, although the relief he requests is much broader than would be expected from a petition under the JRPA , as he seeks declarations on a number of matters, as well as the payment of compensation benefits and damages.

[ 39 ] Mr. Murphy seeks "a restraining order restraining the WCB's denial of benefits pending a decision by the appeal division" respecting one of his claims, and "an interim restraining order from rehabilitation being cut off pending resolution of my claims against the WCB and an order restraining WCB from cutting rehabilitation benefits and the retaining agreement with the plaintiff as agreed to with Vince Russel at the WCB". This appears to be a request to compel the payments of benefits pending an appeal. This relief is not available upon judicial review. [ 40 ] Mr.

Murphy seeks "a declaration that the plaintiff was unfairly treated by the Union, the Trustees, WCB and that they acted vindictively." There are no facts pled in support of these claims for relief which would give rise to a remedy upon judicial review. [ 41 ] Mr.

Murphy seeks "a declaration that the WCB is unlawfully constituted and ultra vires to the act unlawfully amended by Order in Council in 1995 to fraudulently remove the unfunded liabilities by unlawful removal of the Board of Governors designed to unlawfully deprive the injured of benefits," "an order to reinstate the WCB Board of Governors and specific performance of

Section 6 of the WCB Act against the appropriate defendants," and "a declaration that the WCB is ultra vires to the WCB Act and in breach of common law." If Mr. Murphy is seeking to challenge or strike down

an act of the legislature of British Columbia, a petition seeking judicial review of an unspecified decision of the WCB is not the way to do it. I note that the government of British Columbia is not a party to this action. [ 42 ] Further, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act , S.B.C. 1995, c. 55 was introduced to allow for the replacement of the Board of Governors of the WCB by a panel of one or more administrators appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Accordingly, the Board of Governors was not unlawfully removed, and the panel of administrators acted under legislative authority when they denied Mr.

Murphy's benefits. There is nothing in the petition from which I can glean any understanding of Mr. Murphy's position on this amendment, or why he says the WCB is a criminal organization. [ 43 ] Mr. Murphy seeks "a declaration that the WCRB acted in bad faith when they ignored notice June 19, 1998" and "a declaration that Worker's Compensation Review Board ignored notice of bias and an order the ruling to deny benefits be set aside or referred back to the panel for reconsideration." The WCRB is a separate entity from the WCB and is not a party to the petition. Mr.

Murphy indicated he wished to amend the petition to add the WCRB as a party. He has provided no material that would justify such an order. [ 44 ] Mr. Murphy seeks "an order for benefits...", and "an order that WCB reimburse missing pay periods and retraining they promised including out of pocket expenses." The JRPA does not envision the payment of money as a form of relief. [ 45 ] Mr. Murphy seeks "a declaration that cancellation of the plaintiff's WCB benefits is contrary to WCB policy," and "a declaration that the dissenting opinion by the review panel dated February 21, 2002 is consistent to WCB policy".

There is no factual basis set out for either form of relief, even assuming declarations were available on the grounds of policy. [ 46 ] Mr. Murphy seeks a declaration that the WCB concealed the negligent misrepresentation by Russ St. Elois, Union Representative to reduce the benefits in bad faith to obstruct justice in statement of claim C9462123." The WCB is not a party to action C9462123. There are no facts pled to support such an allegation and nothing to support such a declaration being made on this petition. [ 47 ] Mr.

Murphy asks for "an order for costs of collecting evidence on the WCB claim IC93097378 against WCB, which was denied contrary to WCB policy." I presume there was some request for costs put to the Board by Mr. Murphy which was refused. No specific decision is identified. Counsel for the WCB refers to

section 100 of the WCA which gives the Board the discretion to award costs to a successful party to a contested claim as a reasonable sum for expenses. A decision of the Board under this

section would be subject to appeal under

Section 90 of the WCA . [ 48 ] Mr. Murphy seeks "an order that the WCB enforce the

Section 6 remedies outlined in the Act be implemented in claim 2001-D- 157" and "an order for specific performance of

Section 6 of the WCA and the united Association Constitution applicable to the plaintiff's claim." [ 49 ]

Section 6 of the WCA deals with occupational disease claims. Counsel for the WCB suggests Mr. Murphy may be referring to Division 6 of

Part 3 of the WCA , as that is the part which is relevant to claim 2001-D-157. It appears that Mr. Murphy is asking the court to compel the Board to act in a certain way, but there is nothing to indicate where and how the Board failed in some way that would be the subject of judicial review. [ 50 ] Having gone through each paragraph in the petition which concerns the WCB, a general impression emerges that Mr. Murphy has had rehabilitation benefits cut off, apparently more than once, and seeks to review that decision or decisions, to have the benefits paid to him, and/or to challenge the WCA itself.

In oral argument he said it would take five years to use the appeal process within the WCA itself. [ 51 ] Apart from all of the above noted deficiencies in Mr. Murphy's petition, I have tried to determine if there is anything in his petition that could lead me to allow him to properly amend it in order to pursue judicial review. I start from a brief consideration of the role of this court in judicial review. Section 96(1) of the WCA contains a privative clause protecting WCB decisions from judicial review.

The jurisdiction of the court is confined to cases in which it is demonstrated that the Board acted clearly without jurisdiction. A lack of jurisdiction can be founded on a decision that is patently unreasonable. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, the court will not undertake judicial review until the remedies under the statute have been exhausted. [ 52 ] Mr. Massing, Associate General Counsel of the WCB, filed an affidavit on the motion. No evidence is admissible on an application under Rule 19(24)(a), so this affidavit is filed in support of the arguments advanced under Rule 19(24)(

b) and (c). The real substance of the argument made by counsel for WCB is based on Rule 19(24)(a), but as the petition is so deficient in facts and as Mr. Murphy is unrepresented, I have referred to Mr. Massing's affidavit in an effort to determine if there is something in the history of Mr. Murphy's dealings with WCB that, although not articulated in the petition, should lead to allowing Mr. Murphy to amend. [ 53 ] Mr. Massing attaches a number of documents from Mr. Murphy's files. It appears that Mr. Murphy made a claim in 1993 for an injury to his right elbow. This claim was allowed.

In 1995 he began vocational rehabilitation processes. Since then, his claims have been accepted for other conditions and reopened at various times. During the period 1999-2001, there were nine decision letters on a

number of issues such as conditions which were not accepted under the claim, further benefits, costs for representation by an advocate, the results of an employability assessment, and the implementation of two Medical Review Panel certificates. [ 54 ] Mr. Murphy appealed these nine decision letters to the Review Board. A hearing was held in August 2001 and a decision was rendered on February 21, 2002 dismissing all nine appeals. Mr. Murphy then appealed the findings of the Review Board to the Appeal Division who rendered a decision on June 6, 2002. The Appeal Division denied Mr.

Murphy's appeals with respect to all issues except two: they allowed his appeal in regard to vocational rehabilitation assistance and they ordered that the Board should make a decision as to whether his psychological condition was permanent or not. [ 55 ] On July 12, 2002, Mr. Murphy requested a reconsideration of the Appeal Division Decision. This request was denied on the basis that it did not meet the high standard of review necessary. Mr.

Murphy did not provide any new evidence, or any evidence to support his allegations that there had been an error of law going to jurisdiction, including a breach of the principles of natural justice, clerical mistakes, or omissions and fraud. [ 56 ] In relation to most of the nine issues, it would appear that Mr. Murphy has exhausted his statutory remedies. Even if Mr.

Murphy considered bringing a claim for judicial review following the Appeal Division's decision dated June 6, 2002 on the basis, for example, that the decision to deny him wage loss from 1995-1996 was patently unreasonable, there is nothing in the petition as it now stands that gives even a slight indication that it was his intention to advance such an argument. Even by careful study and internal cross- referencing of facts within the petition, it appears impossible to find any material facts that would disclose such a cause of action. [ 57 ] The question remains, then, should Mr.

Murphy be allowed to amend a petition which is in effect a nullity in respect of the WCB, which discloses no cause of action and which pleads no facts from which a cause of action might be inferred? I am prepared to give Mr. Murphy a great deal of leeway because he is unrepresented, but there is no purpose to be served, in my view, by allowing Mr. Murphy to amend this petition in these circumstances. [ 58 ] The application to dismiss the petition as against the WCB and Mr. McGinn is allowed. The petition, as I have said, is virtually a nullity in respect of the WCB.

Nothing has been determined on its merits by this decision. Therefore, this ruling is without prejudice to the right of Mr. Murphy to apply to file a properly framed petition for judicial review against the WCB, setting out the facts upon which he relies, the decisions he seeks to attack, and the grounds upon which they are challenged. MR. MURPHY'S OUTSTANDING MOTIONS [ 59 ] Mr. Murphy took the position that nothing could be decided on these motions until his fourteen motions had been dealt with.

He has recently written to the case management judge reiterating this position. [ 60 ] Williamson J. specifically directed that the motions presently before me should be heard before the motions Mr. Murphy had already filed. As for the more recent motions attacking Mr. Ritchey, Mr. Murphy has been consistently and vehemently critical of Mr. Ritchey during the hearing. However, I have heard nothing that would cause me to defer judgment on these matters. [ 61 ] I have dealt with the actions on their face and on the limited basis of whether there is a cause of action disclosed. Mr.

Murphy has not persuaded me that his outstanding motions should be heard before the motions presently before me. COSTS [ 62 ] Generally, impecuniousness does not absolve a party of their obligation to pay costs, and while there is no rule prohibiting costs being assessed against an indigent plaintiff, courts have been reluctant to order costs against an indigent person. On one hand, defendants should not be exposed to constant litigation because the other party does not fear exposure to costs.

On the other hand, there is no likelihood of collecting them unless the indigent person ultimately recovers against other parties at trial. There will be no damages awarded as a result of the petition, even if it should prove successful. In respect of the writ, where the action has now been dismissed as against all but two defendants, an order for costs will only extend and exacerbate the situation. Having made an order under

section 18, the defendants have some protection against further actions. I will not order costs on these motions. It will be up to the court on each future occasion to exercise its own discretion on costs.

SUMMARY [ 63 ] The Petition is struck out against Mr. Laughton and Mr. Shortt pursuant to Rule 19(24). The Writ is dismissed as against all defendants except P.S. Holdings Ltd. and Anne St. Elois pursuant to Rule 18. The petition is struck out as against the WCB and Mr. McGinn pursuant to Rule 19(24), without prejudice to Mr. Murphy’s right to apply to file a properly framed petition for judicial review against the WCB. There will be no order as to costs. “M.A. Humphries, J.” The Honourable Madam Justice M.A. Humphries