K.R. Applicant v. B.M., 2023 NBKB 82

FDM-202-2016 2023 NBKB 082 IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON BETWEEN: K.R. Applicant -and- B.M. Respondent DECISION BEFORE: Madam Justice Danie Roy AT: Moncton, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: November 25, 2022 DATE OF DECISION: May 11, 2023 APPEARANCES: K.R., per se B.M., per se Denis Th eriault, for the Attorney General of New Brunswick Roy, J. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] K.R. requests that the Court strike out three motions filed by B.M. pursuant to Rule 27.09 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court .

She requests the Court strike out B.M.’s motion filed on November 30, 2021, on the basis that there has been no change in circumstances and that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action . She also asks that the Court strike out B.M.’s Notices of Motion that he filed on January 13, 2021 and February 15, 2022, as they do not disclose a reasonable cause of action that would justify that they be heard. [ 2 ] K.R. asks that the Court strike out B.M.’s Notice of Motion filed on August 22, 2022. However, this motion was dealt with previously.

It was dismissed by Order of this court dated September 29, 2022. [ 3 ] K.R. also asks that B.M. be precluded from submitting further pleadings on the basis that he continuously files numerous frivolous and vexatious motions pursuant to Rule 37.12 of the Rules of Court .

[ 4 ] K.R.’s motion was heard prior to B.M.’s three motions pursuant to an Order of this court dated September 29, 2022. [ 5 ] The parties are the parents of one child, C.M., who is 12 years old. K.R. filed an Application on April 5, 2016, to which B.M. filed a response. Both parents then sought an order for the majority of parenting time in respect to their daughter and an order of support for her, both retroactively and prospectively. [ 6 ] The trial was held on September 28, 29, 30 and October 1, 2021. The decision was rendered on November 29, 2021 ( K.R. v. B.M. 2021 NBQB 251 ).

K.R. was granted the majority of the parenting time with C.M. and final decision-making authority on the significant matters relating to her health, education and well-being. B.M. was allocated parenting time. B.M. was ordered to pay prospective child support pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines and also to pay arrears of child support. [ 7 ] B.M. appealed the trial decision and his appeal was dismissed on September 15, 2022 ( B.M. and K.R., 2022 NBCA 50 ). [ 8 ] B.M. continues to seek a different parental and support order.

He is relentless in his quest for a shared custody arrangement with having to pay no child support. He also wants to share the Canada Child Tax Benefit with K.R. B.M. firmly believes that if he and K.R. would reside in close proximity, it would result in a shared custody arrangement. [ 9 ] While there were several court appearances after the filing of the Application in 2016, it is since the year 2021 that B.M. has persistently filed motions and affidavits, requiring K.R. to respond and to prepare for various court appearances.

Between January 13, 2021, and November 25, 2022, when K.R.’s motion was heard, B.M. filed 10 motions and 22 affidavits. [ 10 ] B.M. also filed a claim before the Small Claims Court on January 21, 2022, requesting $19,000 from K.R. for costs related to broken leases when she moved from Saint John to Moncton and for a 2008 Kia Sportage. [ 11 ] The Attorney General for the province of New Brunswick requested to be heard pursuant to Rule 76.1.02 (5) of the Rules of Court which provides as follows:

(5) A person making an application under paragraph (1) or (3) shall give notice of the application to the Attorney General and the Attorney General is entitled to be heard on the application. [ 12 ] B.M. objected to the request. [ 13 ] While K.R. requests relief under Rule 37.12 and not Rule 76.1 , she does seek an order prohibiting B.M. from submitting further pleadings on the basis that he continuously files numerous frivolous and vexatious motions. B.M. has provided a response.

He denies being vexatious. [ 14 ] The Attorney General did not take position on the motion but did inform the Court that B.M. was seeking to have clerk, Chantal Moreau, testify with respect to administrative functions and that he was also seeking to access correspondence between the court staff and the judiciary. It is in this context and circumstances that the Court heard from the Attorney General. ISSUES [ 15 ] The issues in this matter are as follows: i. Should the Court strike out the motions filed on November 30, 2021, January 13, 2021 and February 15?

ii. Should B.M. be prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceedings without leave? LAW AND ARGUMENT [ 16 ] I deal first with K.R.’s requests that the Court strike out the Notices of Motion filed by B.M. dated January 13, 2021, November 30, 2021, and February 15, 2020. [ 17 ] The Court may strike out any pleadings pursuant to Rule 27.09 of the Rules of Court of New Brunswick which reads as follows: 27.09 Striking Out a Pleading or Other Document The court may strike out any pleading, or other document, or any part thereof, at any time, with or without leave to amend, upon such terms as may be just, on the ground that it: (

a) may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action, (

b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, (

c) is an abuse of the process of the court, (

d) is a contempt of court, or (

e) is not in conformity with the Rules of Court . [ 18 ] In the decision of Rogers v 707600 NB Inc. et al , 2021 NBQB 271 , Chief Justice DeWare refers to the decision of Brooks v. Fredericton City Police Force et al. , 2017 NBQB 83 with respect to the considerations of motions pursuant to Rule 27.09 and says as follows at paragraph 19: [19] In Brooks , Justice Clendening discussed the consideration of motions pursuant to Rule 27.09 of the Rules of Court a t paras. 25 and 26 as follows: B.

Motions Under Rule 27.09 - Frivolous and Vexatious Pleadings 25 In the event that I am wrong with respect to any of the above conclusions I will proceed to deal with the motions pursuant to Rule 27.09 . It is clear that this Court may strike a pleading that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process pursuant to either Rule 27.09 or its inherent jurisdiction. In Moncton Family Outfitters Ltd. v. Schelew , 2005 NBQB 273 at paragraph 49 the Court adopts the reasoning of Justice Dickson in University of New Brunswick Student Union Inc. v. Smith [1987] N.B.J. No. 263 upheld on appeal at [1988] N.B.J.

No. 240 : In dismissing the two actions on the basis that they both were frivolous, vexatious, without merit and an abuse of process, Justice Dickson writes at paragraphs 18 to 20: 18 The law applicable in this jurisdiction is essentially as set out in Halsbury (4th Ed.) Vol. 37 where in paragraph 430 it is stated: 430.

Summary powers to strike out pleadings, dismiss actions and enter judgments. The court is invested with extensive powers to strike out pleadings and thereupon, or for other good reason arising from the making of the claim or defence, to dismiss actions by plaintiffs or to enter judgments against defendants. These powers are both salutary and necessary not only to enforce the basic rules of pleadings but also to dispose of proceedings which are hopeless, baseless or without foundation in law or in equity or are otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The powers are exercised by the court by

summary process, speedily and generally at an early stage of the proceedings, and they operate as a powerful, effective method of disposing of proceedings without a plenary trial.

The powers are derived from two parallel sources. First they are conferred by rules of court and secondly they are exercisable under the courts inherent jurisdiction. These sources are cumulative, not alternative, and may be invoked by the parties and employed by the court simultaneously. However, the powers are permissive, not mandatory, and they confer a discretionary jurisdiction which the court will exercise in the light of all the circumstances concerning the offending pleading. This discretion will be exercised by applying two fundamental, although complementary, principles.

The first principle is that the parties will not lightly “be driven from the seat of judgment,” and for this reason the court will exercise its discretionary power with the greatest care and circumspection, and only in the clearest of cases. The second principle is that a stay or even dismissal of proceedings may “often be required by the very essence of justice to be done,” so as to prevent the parties being harassed and put to expense by frivolous, vexatious or hopeless litigation. (emphasis added) 26 Is the plaintiff’s pleading frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process?

What constitutes such a pleading was extensively canvassed by Justice Glennie in Greene v. Province of New Brunswick 2014 NBQB 168 at paragraphs 155-185 and will not be repeated here. In

summary, though, a pleading which is without substance or cannot reasonably succeed can be considered frivolous and vexatious. Scandalous pleadings are those which make immaterial or unfounded allegations of misconduct, bad faith or impute improper motives to the defendants. A pleading will constitute an abuse of process if it is brought for an improper purpose or if the Court’s process is misused. [ 19 ] In my view, B.M.’s motions filed on January 13, 2021, February 15, 2022 and November 30, 2021, are frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

I arrive at this conclusion for the following reasons. The January 13, 2021, motion [ 20 ] B.M. filed a motion on January 13, 2021. In this motion, he seeks a shared parenting arrangement if both parties reside in the same city , no child support payable and the sharing of the Canada Child Tax Benefit. He requests the following relief: Requesting that the 2016 court order by Judge DeWare be re-instated immediately. 50% travel shared. A document for C’s school requesting that her teacher communicate with her father regarding any significant issues at school.

All days spent with her father to be listed as "primary" days. One week on/one off if both parties reside in the same city. No child support. /Shared child tax benefit. [ 21 ] This motion is without substance and cannot reasonably succeed. Simply put, the issue is moot. The tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issue has become academic. In my view, there is no need to hear this motion. ( Assoc. des Juristes d'Expression Française du Nouveau-Brunswick v.

New Brunswick (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages) , [2023] NBJ No 14 , 2023 NBCA 7 , [2023] AN-B no 14 ) [ 22 ] Firstly, pursuant to an Order dated February 22, 2022, the request for an Order that A document for C.M.’s school requesting that her teacher communicate with her father regarding any significant issues at school.

All days spent with her father to be listed as "primary" days was dismissed on consent by Order dated February 22, 2022. [ 23 ] Also, this January 13, 2021, motion seeking a parental order and a support order was filed prior to the trial and prior to the final decision on November 29, 2021 with respect to parenting and support. [ 24 ] I am cognizant of the limitations of the concept of res judicata in family proceedings where a material change in circumstances permits a variation of a previous order. ( CB v HH , [2018] NBJ No 162 , 2018 NBCA 45 , [2018] AN-B no 162 ) .

However, the January 13, 2021, is not a motion to vary a previous order. It is a motion filed before the trial, seeking a relief that was dealt with and dispose of at the trial. [ 25 ] This motion cannot reasonably succeed. The November 30, 2021, motion [ 26 ] B.M. did file a motion to change on November 30, 2021, seeking to vary the decision of November 29, 2021 as it relates to parenting time, decision-making responsibility and child support.

It is noteworthy that he filed the motion to change the day after the decision. [ 27 ] In this motion, he again seeks a shared parenting arrangement, no child support be payable and the sharing of the Canada Child Tax Benefit. He requests that the order be changed and says as follows:

Requesting 50% shared time between K.R. and B.M. One week on, one-off. Child support to be set at $0, effective November 1, 2021. On September 24, 2021, I was offered a job. However, due to HR issues, I only received the offer in October. I signed it mid-October. Investigator/Inspector (EECD). I took a rental cottage for November in Shediac. I move into my 2 bedroom apartment this weekend 109-135 Gould Street, Dieppe. We should have 50% shared time. [ 28 ] In his affidavit sworn November 30 , 2021, in support of his motion, B.M. says: I believe […] and I should share 50% time with C.M.

She is my only family here, and the ONLY reason I moved-one week on, one-off. Shared Canada Child Tax. I believe monthly child support should be set at $0 if 50% shared time. Otherwise, I do not think it’s fair to only have every other weekend. (Based on $470). [ 29 ] B.M. was to move to an apartment in Dieppe the following weekend, that is the basis of his motion to change. To be successful on this motion, the Court would need to conclude there is a material change in circumstances. His move to Dieppe would need to constitute the material change. However, B.M. has returned to live in Saint John.

He says that after descending into debt from the costs of living in Dieppe and awaiting a hearing date, he returned to Saint John. [ 30 ] K.R. submits that B.M. is in the habit of moving to support his belief that being close to K.R. will result in a shared parenting arrangement. B.M. himself says he has moved to Moncton three times to get closer to his daughter. [ 31 ] B.M.’s motion to change is based on a change of circumstance that does not exist, or no longer exists, as he returned to live in Saint John. There is no substance to the motion and it cannot reasonably succeed.

The February 15, 2022, motion [ 32 ] In his motion filed on February 15, 2022, B.M. seeks the following relief: Requesting an emergency court hearing regarding three (3) blocked weekends in 2020, and one (1) in January 2021. […] was "in contempt" of a 2017 Justice Tuck order.

Requesting that the 2016 Justice DeWare order be re-instated in full (And shared 50% travel) $350.00 child support (Saint John) [ 33 ] Pursuant to an Order dated March 29, 2022, the request that the 2016 Justice DeWare order be re-instated in full (And shared 50% travel) $350.00 child support (Saint John) was withdrawn on consent on the basis that B.M. had sought the same relief in his motion filed January 13, 2021, and the motion filed November 30, 2021. B.M. repeatedly files motion seeking the same relief.

This is the reason K.R. filed her motion. [ 34 ] In this February 15, 2022 motion, B.M. also asks that K.R. be found in contempt of a 2017 Order for missed parental time for three (3) blocked weekends in 2020, and one (1) in January 2021. He filed this motion in February 2022, yet he requested it be heard on an emergency basis for events that occurred in 2020 and 2021. [ 35 ] B.M. says that in the fall of 2020, K.R. blocked three weekends, precluding him from seeing C.M. He accuses her of child abduction. This is during a time that B.M.’s work was related to the Covid pandemic.

He argues it is not acceptable to deny parenting time because one parent is a frontline healthcare worker. He also argues there was one blocked weekend in January 2021. However, this issue was raised at the trial held in the fall of 2021 and adjudicated upon. B.M. himself says K.R. stated at trial she provided him with the "the time back" but says that it is impossible. B.M. has also said the K.R lied in court. [ 36 ] The reality is that B.M. wishes to be heard again on the same issues over and over again. He refuses to accept the outcome. It constitutes an abuse and misuse of the Court’s process. ( Johnston v.

Saint John Regional Hospital Corporation et al. , 2005 NBQB 389 , at paragraph 25 )

[ 37 ] I arrive at the conclusion that B.M.’s motions filed on January 13, 2021, February 15, 2022, and November 30, 2021 are frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. They are accordingly struck. [ 38 ] I will now address K.R.’s request for an Order pursuant to Rule 37.12 of the Rules of Court of New Brunswick , that the Court prohibit the Respondent on Motion from submitting further pleadings before the Court without leave.

Rule 37.12 provides as follows: 37.12 Prohibiting Motions Without Leave On the hearing of a motion, where the court is satisfied that a party is attempting to delay the proceeding or add to the costs or otherwise abuse the process of the court by frivolous or vexatious motions, it may prohibit that party from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave. [ 39 ] In the last two years, B.M. has filed numerous motions and affidavits as noted below: Prior to the final decision on November 29, 2021 January 13, 2021: B.M. files a Notice of motion February 26, 2021: K.R. files a responding Affidavit and Financial Statement March 3, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit March 18, 2021: B.M. filed another Affidavit in order to correct his previous one March 19, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit March 24, 2021: B.M. files two Affidavits April 13, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit and a Financial Statement May 7, 2021: B.M. files Notice of Motion, with an Affidavit, and a Financial Statement May 20, 2021: K.R. filed an updated Financial Statement pursuant to the Procedural Order issued on March 26, 2021 May 21, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit June 10, 2021: K.R. filed an Affidavit in response June 18, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit June 21, 2021: B.M. filed an Affidavit September 16, 2021: K.R. filed an Affidavit September 20, 2021: B.M. filed a Responding document and an Affidavit of a non-party to the proceedings After the final decision on November 29, 2021 November 29, 2021: B.M. files a Notice of Motion November 30, 2021: B.M. files a Notice of Motion December 2, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit December 2, 2021: B.M. files a second Affidavit December 15, 2021: B.M. files an Affidavit

January 21, 2022: B.M. files a Claim before the Small Claims Court with K.R. being a defendant January 25, 2022: B.M. filed an Affidavit. January 31, 2022: K.R. filed an Affidavit February 2, 2022: B.M. filed an Affidavit February 8, 2002: B.M. filed an Affidavit February 15, 2022: B.M. files a Notice of Motion.

February 18, 2022: B.M. files a Notice of Motion June 21, 2022: B.M. filed an Amended Claim with the Small Claims Court August 22, 2022: B.M. files a Notice of Motion August 25, 2022: K.R. files a Notice of Motion October 4, 2022: B.M. files an Affidavit October 13, 2022: B.M. files an Affidavit September 20, 2022: B.M. files an Affidavit September 16, 2022: B.M. files a Notice of Motion and Affidavit September 7, 2022: B.M. files a Financial Statement September 7, 2022: B.M. files a Notice of Motion and Affidavit September 7, 2022: B.M. files a second Affidavit November 10, 2022: K.R. files an Affidavit [ 40 ] In addition, B.M. appealed the November 29, 2021, decision and also filed a motion before the Court of Appeal. [ 41 ] In S.W. v.

C.J. [2021] N.B.J. No. 259 , Chief Justice DeWare declined to make an order under Rule 37.12 where one party was not overly litigious as compared to the other. She further commented that things had not risen to the point where Rule 37.12 is appropriately invoked. [ 42 ] The decision in S.W. v. C.J. is distinguishable. And in my view, in this matter, Rule 37.12 is appropriately invoked. I am satisfied that B.M. is abusing the process of the court by frivolous and vexatious motions. I am also of the view that B.M. is litigious to the point that it constitutes harassment of K.R.

I arrive at those conclusions for the following reasons. [ 43 ] B.M. relentlessly seeks a shared custody arrangement, having to pay no child support and the sharing the Canada Child Tax Benefit with K.R. He is unhappy with the current parental order and support order and refuses to accept it. [ 44 ] In my view, B.M.’s repeated motions with the filing of an inordinate number of affidavits seeking the same relief, over and over again, is an abuse of the process of the Court.

The motions are frivolous and vexatious. [ 45 ] I do not arrive at this conclusion lightly but do so after having considered the evidence before me. The constant pursuit of B.M. seeking a shared custody arrangement, when the issue has already been adjudicated, has taken its toll on K.R. [ 46 ] When K.R. received the final decision dated November 29, 2021, her evidence is that she thought everything would be done, meaning she would not have to continue to respond to the volume of motions and affidavits filed by B.M.

But it was not done and B.M. continued to pursue his quest for a shared parenting arrangement. [ 47 ] K.R.’s evidence is that the court proceedings have taken an important toll on her financially, mentally, and physically. She says she has missed approximately 23 days of work in order to appear before the court and missed additional time to work on numerous documents responding to the allegations made by B.M. This includes his allegations of child abduction, blocking several weekends of

parental time and being in contempt of court. [48] In preparation for the trial in 2021, K.R. prepared the Trial Record, which consists of 892 pages while working full-time andraising a family. She says she was so nervous and overwhelmed that her family doctor put her on a two-week sick leave. She says thatmost of the 892 pages are pleadings and several affidavits filed by the respondent and contained little financial disclosure. There were 48documents in the Trial Record Index. [49] B.M.’s appeal of the final decision was heard on March 15, 2022.

K.R. did not attend the hearing and she explains she waspreparing for another court appearance. [50] In a recent decision, Justice Gregory (C.J. v. D.O., unreported, dated August 10, 2022), referred to the Court of Appealdecision in Ayangma v. Université de Moncton, 2019 NBCA 72 in listing the primary elements which support a declaration of avexatious litigant to be as follows:

a) propensity to relitigate matters that have already been heard;

b) unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety against the opposite party, legal counsel, the court and administrative officials;

c) the refusal to abide by rules and orders of the court, including the failure to pay costs. [51] Justice Gregory also noted the impact it has, not only on the responding party, but also on the limited resources available tothe Court and said as follows: [19] I also find that in the context of the limited judicial resources available to the court, not to mention the financial impact on […] ofhaving to reply to motions to appear in court and to take time away from work, that it is abusive to the judicial system.

An inordinateamount of time and effort is required to address the voluminous filings by […]. [52] K.R. also says she is under constant harassment from B.M. with emails and messages. This is not new. This was alsoaddressed by Justice Robichaud in her final decision, at paragraph 108, where she says as follows: [108] …The evidence establishes the father has been unrelentless in criticizing the mother for moving away from his home base. Heremains fixated on the notion she abducted CM and made repeated claims that she contravened provisions of the Criminal Code.

Hisobsessive emails and text messages in that regard, with copies sent at times to third parties, amount in my view to acts of harassment andbullying. [53] In A.N.H. v. L.D.G., 2022 BCCA 155, the Court of Appeal in British Columbia commented it was not in the interest ofjustice to allow its processes to be used as a vehicle for perpetrating family violence. In that matter, the father’s conduct in the litigationhad been found to constitute intimidation, harassment, and family violence.

The Court of Appeal commented as follows at paragraph 49: [49] Not only has A.N.H. persisted in wasting judicial resources and abusing court processes despite multiple warnings, he has done soagainst his former spouse and their children. As Justice Cole found in 2014, A.N.H.’s conduct in this litigation (which had already beenongoing for years) constituted intimidation, harassment, and family violence.

We observed that all this litigation began in 2009 whenA.N.H. filed an application without notice to L.D.G. after he dropper her off at the airport so she had not change to respond, followed byanother application – again without notice-without ever having served L.D.G. the materials on which he relied. It has been eight years,dozens of court applications, and thousands of pages or largely incomprehensible material, since Justice Cole’s finding that this isfamily violence.

We do not find that anything has change. “Family violence”, as defined in the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011 c. 25includes “psychological or emotional abuse of a family member” such as intimidation or harassment. It is not in the interests of justicefor this Court to allow its processes to be used as a vehicle for perpetrating family violence of this nature. [54] B.M. says it would be an injustice to him, his family, and to the child, C.M., if the Court chose to limit his ability to request amotion to share equal parenting time. But B.M. was heard on the issue of parenting and support.

He was able to put his request forshared parenting before the Court. [55] An order prohibiting the filing of motions without leave does not mean B.M. cannot be heard if there is a reason to be heard. In the decision of Bossé v Immeubles Robo Ltée, , at paragraph 38, Justice Baird reproduces the following quotefrom the Court of Appeal of Alberta, which is relevant: [38] In Wong v. Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 277, [2011] A.J. No. 1115, Slatter J.A. concludes:

The applicant argues that the vexatious litigant order denies her the basic right of a Canadian citizen to commence a legal action. That is not the true effect of the order. The applicant can still commence any legitimate action; she is only subject to a screening procedure to make sure that any action she propose is properly founded in fact and law, and will be diligently prosecuted.

The vexatious litigant order does not substantially prejudice the applicant. [para.8] [ 56 ] But for B.M., everyone is breaking the rules because both he and K.R. are self-represented litigants. [ 57 ] B.M. also blames K.R. and says he has gone above and beyond to be involved in C.M.’s life, but K.R. has made it physically, emotionally, financially, and geographically impossible for him to share time with his daughter. [ 58 ] B.M. says he has moved to Moncton three times to get close to his daughter.

He says he has bent over backwards to live close to his daughter to share parenting but there have been roadblocks. He adds that it is K.R who could have avoided many of the court appearances and says that K.R. has offered many times they share parenting. [ 59 ] B.M. says he is not vexatious. At the same time, he has admitted that he has asked for shared parenting since 2016. [ 60 ] B .M. argues that any motions that he has filed, it was with good reason and that he is not wasting the court’s time.

He adds that he has not filed a lawsuit against the province of New Brunswick, against the Law Society of New Brunswick or against K.R.’s previous lawyer. With respect to his filing of the Small Claims Action, he says he was told to do so by a Judge of the Court of King’s Bench and a judge of the Court of Appeal. [ 61 ] Simply put, B.M. is not happy with the final decision dated November 29, 2021. At the hearing of this matter, he said that the trial held from September 28-30 and October 1, 2021, was a waste of time.

In my view, this illustrates his complete disregard for and his misuse of the court’s process. [ 62 ] I note as well that in his affidavit sworn on December 15, 2021, B.M. criticizes K.R. for following an Order of the Court. He said that K.R. prefers to follow the current order to the very detail . He deposed as follows: […] has offered five times to set up a shared agreement with K.R. because he had a furnished cottage in Shediac, and now a full two bedroom apartment at 135 Gould Street. All of these times, […] has stated "No". She would prefer to follow the current order to the very detail.

Even though […] is living in Dieppe, he and […]y are meeting in Sussex to transition C.M. between parents’. […] also has no other choice because K.R. is blocking B.M.’s efforts when he parks on the street at [...]. [ 63 ] I am satisfied that B.M. is abusing the process of the court by frivolous and vexatious motions and it needs to stop. Not only does it have a significant impact of K.R. in the form of harassment, it is also consuming time and resources of the Court. [ 64 ] I am of the view that B.M. should be prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave.

CONCLUSION [ 65 ] I arrive at the conclusion that B.M.’s motions filed on January 13, 2021, February 15, 2022 and November 30, 2021, are frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. They are accordingly struck. [ 66 ] I am also satisfied that B.M. is abusing the process of the court by frivolous and vexatious motions. B.M. is prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceedings without leave. COSTS

[ 67 ] K.R. requests costs in the amount of $2000. [ 68 ] B.M. has argued that it is K.R. that should be responsible for legal costs for any proceedings that began after October 31, 2021. In his affidavit sworn February 8, 2022, B.M. says: B.M is requesting legal COSTS from the Respondent from any proceedings that began after October 31, 2021-and any subsequent case management conferences and/or hearings in 2022. [ 69 ] K.R. is successful on her motion. She is entitled to costs which I fix at $2000.00 inclusive of disbursements. DISPOSITION [ 70 ] The Respondent’s motions dated November 30, 2021, January 13, 2021, and February 15, 2022, are stricken entirely pursuant to Rules 27.09 (

b) and 27.09 (

c) of the New Brunswick Rules of Court . [ 71 ] The Respondent is prohibited from bringing further motions in the proceeding without leave pursuant to Rule 37.12 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court . [ 72 ] The Respondent shall pay costs to the Applicant, which I fix at $2000.00 inclusive of disbursements. DATED at Saint John, New Brunswick, this 11 th day of May, 2023. _____________________________ Danie Roy Justice of the Court of King’s Bench New Brunswick, Family Division