Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, 2013 NSCA 59

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board , 2013 NSCA 59 Date: 20130506 Docket: CA 413884 Registry: Halifax Between: Ralph Ivan Doncaster Appellant v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board And Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jamie W.S. Saunders Motions Heard: May 2, 2013, 2013, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Chambers Held: Appellant’s recusal demand denied; respondents’ motion for stay granted . Counsel: Appellant in person Bruce T.

MacIntosh, Q.C., for the respondent Chignecto- Central Regional School Board Edward Gores, Q.C. for the respondent Attorney General of Nova Scotia Decision: [ 1 ] This case came before me in Chambers on Thursday, May 2, 2013. I first dealt with Mr. Doncaster’s demand that I recuse myself from hearing the matter. On that issue, after carefully considering Mr. Doncaster’s representations together with the most helpful submissions made by Mr. MacIntosh for the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board (CCRSB) and Mr.

Gores on behalf of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, I advised the parties that on this record I had no need to reflect on the matter any further; that there was absolutely no merit to Mr. Doncaster’s demand that I recuse myself; and that his demand was refused, with reasons to follow. [ 2 ] I then turned to a consideration of the merits of the CCRSB’s motion to stay the appeal. After hearing argument and having reviewed the comprehensive written submissions filed by counsel, I informed the parties that the CCRSB’s motion for a stay was

granted, with reasons to follow. [3] These are my reasons. Mr. Doncaster’s Demand that I Recuse Myself [4] As I said at the hearing, I used the word “demand” advisedly. Mr. Doncaster had not filed any motion as prescribed under theRules in notifying the Court or the parties of his intentions. Rather, the first indication I had of any such demand was seeing an emailMr. Doncaster had sent to the Registrar on April 30, 2013 at 8:48 a.m. which read: I intend to make a motion to the presiding justice (justice Saunders) to recuse himself.

While my complaint to the CJC is underinvestigation, Justice Saunders is in a conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias exists. - Ralph [5] Evidently Mr. Doncaster had chosen not to copy counsel for the CCRSB or the AGNS with his email. I directed the Registrarto respond to all parties with an email sent April 30 which read: Dear Mr. Doncaster: Re: CA 413884 – Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board et al ... Mr. Justice Saunders was made aware of the contents of your email sent today April 30th at 8:48 a.m.

He has asked me to say that helooks forward to presiding over your motion to recuse himself from hearing your matter(

s) and to considering the representations youand other counsel wish to make, in so far as the law requires. [6] Because of Mr. Doncaster’s failure to make a proper motion or file any written materials in support of his demand that I recusemyself, I inquired of counsel representing the CCRSB and the AGNS whether they were prepared to consent that I hear Mr. Doncaster’s“motion” in any event. Messrs. MacIntosh and Gores both confirmed their consent that if I were prepared to proceed, they wereagreeable to my doing so. I then called upon Mr.

Doncaster to make whatever oral representations he thought appropriate. [7] I reminded Mr. Doncaster that he had not favoured me with a copy of his complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council and so Ihad no knowledge of the nature of his complaint. In order for me to consider his demand that I recuse myself I would need to haveparticulars of his complaint. He attempted to find a copy on his computer notebook which he said preserved all of his correspondenceand records for 30 days but after two or three minutes of searching he said he couldn’t find it and would prefer to summarize thecomplaint.

He undertook to send a copy of the complaint together with any and all attachments or other references that formed part of it,to the Registrar within the next two or three days to complete this Court’s record. [8] Mr. Doncaster then described the incident, and only incident, which sparked his complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. He said it was about my “conduct” during an earlier Chambers appearance this term when, in the process of writing down some dates he(Doncaster) had referred to his estranged wife’s lawyer by “she” or “her” to which I had intervened and said something to him along thelines of “Mr.

Doncaster, counsel in this Chambers has a name and so you are to refer to Ms. Stevenson by her name.” Mr. Doncasterexplained that my interjection came after he had already pointed out to me that he has ADHD and Asbergers.

He said that it wasapparent to him that I knew nothing about Asbergers and instead of understanding his “disability” and “accommodating” it, I had“chastised” him for “not following some silly, unwritten rules of Court decorum.” He then made reference to the Charter, certainUnited Nations Conventions on Persons with Disability, cases dealing with reasonable apprehension of bias, and a “welcome message”he had printed off the Internet of remarks made on some occasion by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

He said that in filing hiscomplaint with the Canadian Judicial Council he had urged the Council to require me to take “sensitivity training” to “accommodate ....someone with a mental disability, like either of the two that I have, ADHD and Asbergers ...” and until such time as I had undertaken(and I assume presumably successfully completed) such training I should be prohibited from presiding over matters which involved him. [9] Messrs. MacIntosh and Gores made their own detailed submissions challenging both the substance of Mr.

Doncaster’s remarksand the “hearsay evidence” he had proffered while seated in his chair during the hearing, having chosen not to file a proper motion underthe Rules and simply raise the matter for the first time in the form of a demand sent by email to the Registrar. Mr. Doncaster signalledhis intention to remain seated, early on. When Chambers began he was the only person in a packed courtroom who refused to stand. When I inquired this exchange resulted: JUSTICE SAUNDERS: And I take it you don’t wish to stand today, Mr. Doncaster? MR.

DONCASTER: If you want to stand when you talk to me, I’ll stand when I talk to you. [10] Mr. Doncaster made reference to other cases which I told him were, in my view, easily distinguishable and not relevant to myhaving to address his complaint about my conduct on that earlier Chambers appearance. [11] For example, Mr. Doncaster referred to the case of Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45 , [2003] 2S.C.R. 259.

As I recall, that was a case where a party had raised the possibility of bias or apprehension of bias on the part of a sittingjudge, Justice Binnie, on account of his earlier career as an Associate Deputy Minister of Justice who, by virtue of the nature of his work,may have been exposed to some of the issues, parties, or discussions surrounding an upcoming matter before the Court. The IndianBands had moved to set aside the Court’s judgement on that basis and the Crown sought directions as to how it ought to proceed. Obviously there is no parallel between that case and this one. [12] Mr.

Doncaster also referred, by name, to certain justices on the Nova Scotia Supreme Court who had deliberately recusedthemselves on account of some perceived familiarity among family ties, roots or other community connections. Again, those illustrationsare not helpful in my assessment of Mr. Doncaster’s recusal demand in this case.

[13] The law in such matters is clear. I need not recite it in detail. Obviously the mere filing of a complaint with the CanadianJudicial Council does not pull the trigger for recusal. If that were the case, one could simply file a complaint and “pick off” a judge, oneby one until the complainant either found one to his liking (“judge shopping”) or there were no judges left to hear the case. Such a resultis neither the law nor in the public interest. [14] The law directs that this is an inquiry I conduct myself.

The grounds put forward suggesting bias or a reasonable apprehensionof bias must be serious and specific. There is a strong presumption of judicial impartiality. The law does not lightly or carelessly evokethe possibility of bias in a judge whose oath of office and authority depends upon that presumption. The test for reasonable apprehensionof bias is settled law: What would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude?

Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly. See, for example, Wewaykum, supra; Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, (SCC), [1978] 1S.C.R. 369 at 394. [15] Mr. Doncaster does not assert that I ought to recuse myself because he lost a case at a previous trial or Chambers appearanceover which I presided. It is obvious but perhaps bears repeating that such an assertion would hardly be a basis for recusal in any event. That isn’t how things work.

Otherwise disgruntled litigants would invariably demand the recusal of any judge who had found againstthem, eventually whittling the juridical pool down to zero. The mere fact that a party has lost some motion or suit before a judge (without a jury) does not entitle that litigant to be thereafter free ofthat judge. That is so both in later suits of a broadly similar nature, and in later motions in the same suit. Broda v. Broda, 2001 ABCA 151 at 16. [16] Rather, Mr.

Doncaster says that my having “chastised “ (his word) him for “not following some silly, unwritten rules of Courtdecorum” suggests to him that I: ... may draw some conclusions based upon my behaviour. So, for instance, perhaps where I don’t have any deference to authority youmay draw some conclusions that because I don’t respect authority therefore I may not, you know, respect the law. And, therefore, mycase may be – you may deem it frivolous when, in fact, it’s not.

This he says: ... may bring into question again your partiality where it is apparent, I think that you do expect people in the court with mental disabilityor not, you like them to follow the court decorum and I would say even archaic rituals of this Court and that my failure to show you therespect you think that may be acclaimed by judges where, in my personal opinion, a judge is no more – and I said this in anotherProvincial Court case before Judge Jamie Campbell to kind of explain Asbergers. To me, a judge is no more deserving of respect than ajanitor.

I judge people – I behave – I interact with people based on how they interact with me. Another way I put it before is respect isnot acclaimed; it’s earned.

And so given the fact that I don’t show you the respect that I think it seems you were use to getting frompeople in this court, I would say even having watched court processes a lot it seems like not just respect but deference in submission thatit seems to be, I guess to go back to Medieval times, it seems like it’s still where you, people coming to the court are considered to becoming before the King’s representative and you know the King gets to sit upon his bench and people kind of see to him.

So because ofthat lack of respect and deference I think again that brings in to question whether or not you will be deciding things on the basis of theactual evidence and facts before you rather than on the basis of your personal opinion and perhaps even emotional response to me notshowing the respect and having the gall to go and complain to the Judicial Council, things like that. ... [17] That then is the basis for Mr. Doncaster’s demand that I recuse myself from hearing the CCRSB’s motion for a stay (which theAGNS supports fully and joins in).

Based on this record I have no hesitation in concluding that an informed person, viewing the matterrealistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would not think it more likely that I consciously or unconsciously,would not decide the matter fairly. [18] Mr. Doncaster’s demand that I recuse myself is rejected. CCRSB’s Motion for Stay [19] I accept the facts, submissions and authorities set forth in Mr. MacIntosh’s comprehensive and most helpful brief. The motionhe brings on behalf of the CCRSB (fully supported and joined in by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia) seeks to stay Mr.

Doncaster’sappeal from the trial decision of Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Kevin Coady (now reported at 2012 NSSC 383). The backgroundto that case can be briefly summarized. [20] CCRSB had a Protection of Property Notice served upon Mr. Doncaster on February 5, 2012, following a school yardconfrontation involving the appellant at Enfield District Elementary School. CCRSB took this step to ensure the safety of students andstaff and to maintain stability in the school environment. Mr.

Doncaster then commenced an application in the Nova Scotia SupremeCourt seeking a judicial determination that the Nova Scotia Protection of Property Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 363 did not apply to publicschools and that the Notice issued against him by CCRSB breached his Charter rights. He sought to have the notice quashed. Due tothe Charter issues raised the Attorney General of Nova Scotia was given notice and fully participated. [21] Mr. Doncaster’s application was heard in Special Chambers on October 9, 2012. In support of his application Mr. Doncasterfiled a single 3-paragraph affidavit.

He did not submit any evidence supporting his Charter breach allegations. [22] Justice Coady characterized the situation in ¶17 of his decision stating:

[3] Early in Mr. Doncaster's separation from Jennifer Field there was an incident at the children's school. School staff understood that Ms. Field was the parent authorized to pick up the children after school. Mr. Doncaster arrived at the school requesting that the children be released to him. A confrontation ensued between school staff, Mr. Doncaster and Ms. Field. Police were called and he was directed to leave the school premises. Staff instructed the parents to resolve the issue of after school pick up and to advise the school accordingly.

Due to this confrontation, as well as other circumstances, the school board served Mr. Doncaster with a notice pursuant to the Protection of Property Act . The notice prohibited him from being on the school property. [ 23 ] Following protracted oral and written arguments Coady, J. dismissed the claims of Mr. Doncaster in their entirety and ordered him to pay costs to CCRSB and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia saying: [20] I award $2500.00 in costs to both respondents for a total costs award against Mr. Doncaster in the amount of $5000.00. [ 24 ] Evidently Mr.

Doncaster filed two separate appeals from that decision, the first CA 410231 filed on December 11, 2012; the second, CA 413884 filed March 25, 2013. Each appeal arises from the same trial decision and alleges the identical grounds of appeal. [ 25 ] As indicated in Mr. MacIntosh’s brief CCRSB filed a motion to stay in the first appeal which sought the same remedies as requested here. As soon as that first motion was brought, Mr. Doncaster discontinued that appeal but without giving any notice to the CCRSB. [ 26 ] Mr. Doncaster has not made any meaningful attempt to satisfy his $5,000 costs debt.

On April 24, 2013, the School Board received one $5.00 bill from Mr. Doncaster. He made a similar payment of a $5.00 bill to the Attorney. These are the only payments Mr. Doncaster has made to fulfil the costs order issued by Justice Coady. [ 27 ] The Board then brought the present motion seeking a stay of these proceedings pending Mr. Doncaster’s paying the costs order in the court below and posting security for costs in this appeal, whether the appellant be impecunious or not. [ 28 ] I will now address Mr. Doncaster’s principal arguments as I recall them.

He did not file any written submissions or an affidavit to respond to CCRSB’s motion. [ 29 ] He sought an adjournment implying that he was ill prepared. I denied that motion. Mr. MacIntosh reminded Mr. Doncaster that he had received a copy of the CCRSB’s brief in the first appeal (which Mr. Doncaster had chosen to discontinue without notice to the other parties) about 3 weeks earlier and the contents of that brief were identical to the contents of their brief here. In addition, it was clear to me both from the nature and substance of Mr.

Doncaster’s representations that he was prepared to respond to the applicant’s arguments. [ 30 ] He asked to give viva voce evidence. I denied his request. Such a request, even if it were justified (and I decided it was not) would only have delayed the proceedings when Mr. Doncaster himself had urged that the matter proceed quickly so that he could attend a relative’s wake in Antigonish later in the day. [ 31 ] He complained that I had prevented him from cross-examining Ms. Angie Scanlan, a paralegal with Mr. MacIntosh’s firm who had sworn a lengthy affidavit with exhibits attached in support of CCRSB’s motion.

I reminded Mr. Doncaster that he had sent an email to the Registrar on Sunday, April 28 at 11:34 a.m. reading: I wish to give notice that I require an opportunity cross-examine Ms. Scanlan on her affidavit. - Ralph When the Registrar told me that she had received such a letter from Mr. Doncaster I instructed her to reply which she did by a letter sent to Mr. Doncaster dated April 29, 2013 (copied to counsel for the CCRSB and the AGNS) as follows: Dear Mr. Doncaster: RE: CA 413884 – Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board et al. As you are aware, Justice Saunders is presiding in Chambers.

I have drawn his attention to your email dated Sunday April 28 th @ 11:34 am. Stating you “require an opportunity to cross-examine Ms Scanlan on her affidavit. Justice Saunders has instructed me to inform you that his leave is required to cross-examine any affiant. You have not given any reasons for your request. It seems to him that Ms. Scanlan’s affidavit is simply presented to establish a factual chronology of events. Unless you can explain the basis for your request, and offer reasons that persuade him to grant leave, you request will be declined, and Ms Scanlan need not appear.

If you intend to reply you must do so in writing to me and all other parties by 12 noon tomorrow. [ 32 ] This prompted a lengthy response from Mr. Doncaster. On account of its length I will not reproduce it verbatim, but simply record its first sentence: Caroline, I am not requesting leave to cross-examine an affiant. I am giving notice that cross-examination is required. .... following which Mr. Doncaster then proceeded to cite and offer his own

interpretation of certain CPRs. To all of that I directed the Registrar to send the following email to Mr. Doncaster dated April 30, 2013, which read: Dear Mr. Doncaster:

RE: CA 413884 – Doncaster v.

Chignecto-Central Regional School Board et al I have referred your email of today’s date sent at 11:35 am to Justice Saunders who has asked me to inform you that: - he declines to grant you leave to cross-examine the affiant as no reasons were offered to support your request and it appears to him that the affidavit is simply filed to establish a factual chronology of events; - the affiant need not attend the hearing; - he intends to hear the CCRSB’s motion for a stay and costs and security for costs on Thursday if, after considering your motion to have him recuse himself, he decides to proceed; - he does not wish to enter into any further exchanges with you by correspondence and expects to hear your submissions at Thursday’s hearing, should you choose to appear. [ 33 ] Any member of this Court has the power to effectively superintend and manage the Court’s own process.

Such a statement hardly requires affirmation, but if any were needed one could start with 90.37: Motion to a judge of the Court of Appeal 90.37

(2) A judge of the Court of Appeal has and may exercise any power necessary to deal with a motion made to the judge under this Rule 90.37 or any other Rule, or other legislation. [ 34 ] Mr. Doncaster complained that I did not have jurisdiction to consider CCRSB’s motion because it had not been filed in accordance with the Rules. I rejected that submission as being entirely without merit. He cited CPR 23 complaining that the applicants’ motion was late. I will assume Mr. Doncaster is confused. CPR 23 is not this Court’s motions Rule. Our Rule is CPR 90.37(5) which says that only four clear days are required. Mr.

Doncaster also argued that CCRSB had to make a motion for directions before it was allowed to make a motion for a stay, this time quoting CPR 90.36(3). Again, I will assume Mr. Doncaster is confused. He is referring to the wrong rule. Evidently he does not understand the difference between making a motion to the Court of Appeal under CPR 90.36, and making a motion to a judge of the Court of Appeal under CPR 90.37. [ 35 ] Mr. Doncaster said that the CCRSB and the Crown should not be allowed to bring a motion for a stay because such relief is only available for “exceptional circumstances”. That is wrong.

Such is not the law in every case. While this Court’s power to stay is used sparingly, it will always be a useful tool, whenever circumstances warrant, to effect or restore justice between the parties. Alternatively, I think any reasonable observer would conclude that Mr. Doncaster has, by his actions, made himself an exceptional case. [ 36 ] Mr. Doncaster said the CCRSB and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia are not entitled to request a stay because this case is “quasi-criminal in nature”. Wrong again. This is a civil matter in which Mr.

Doncaster chose to challenge the constitutional validity and scope of provincial legislation. There is nothing criminal or quasi-criminal or regulatory about it. [ 37 ] He then suggested this was a case that ought to be set down for “judicial mediation”. I rejected that submission saying that the Court’s leave would first have to be obtained and in any event would require all-party consent across the board. [ 38 ] Mr. Doncaster next pleaded impecuniosity saying that he had a negative net worth.

In this I told him it seemed to me that he was then attempting to rely upon the contents of the CCRSB’s supporting affidavit which made some reference to Mr. Doncaster’s financial situation – the very same document he had opposed just a few minutes earlier. In any event, as this Court has ruled previously, impecuniosity does not offer immunity from security for costs in every case. See for example, Turner-Lienaux v. Campbell , 2001 CarswellNS 291 ; and Lienaux v. Campbell , 2011 NSCA 94 . [ 39 ] Mr. Doncaster said that to allow the stay would be “putting a price on my attempt to enforce my Charter rights”.

I rejected that submission by reminding Mr. Doncaster that it was he who had drawn in the Attorney General of Nova Scotia in the first place and that by posting security and honouring the costs order from the court below he would then have every opportunity to carry on whatever challenge he thinks he has relating to this particular statute. [ 40 ] In his written and oral submissions Mr. MacIntosh on behalf of the CCRSB made reference to Justice Coady’s strong and clear findings against Mr.

Doncaster, quoting these portions of Justice Coady’s decision: [1] Ralph Ivan Doncaster has become one of the most active self-represented litigants in this and other Courts of Nova Scotia. It is fair comment that all of these proceedings are rooted in his acrimonious separation from his spouse and children. Mr. Doncaster has decided that these family based issues are best dealt with by confrontation rather than conciliation. It appears as if he has recently discovered that the Courts of Nova Scotia provide the best weapons to pursue his objectives. ... [18] Mr. Doncaster has not satisfied me that he is poor.

Further, I am satisfied that he is the exact kind of litigant who will exploit the Court's services unless he is tempered by cost concerns. [ 41 ] Mr. Doncaster took umbrage with these findings suggesting that they were irrelevant to matters in the court below and to my consideration of the motion for a stay. I reject his submission. In my opinion they are absolutely relevant to a consideration of the issues that arise here. This is especially the case where, as here counsel allege that Mr. Doncaster has shown a pattern of exploiting court resources to suit his own ends.

That puts the issue squarely before the Court. I asked Mr. Doncaster if he had kept a record of the number of proceedings in which he was named as a participating party in the courts of Nova Scotia. He said he had not. As a matter of interest, and to provide substance to Justice Coady’s unambiguous findings, which are obviously well-founded, I include as an appendix and to form part of my decision a chart which lists the total number of proceedings in Nova Scotia where Mr. Doncaster is named as a

party, current to April 29, 2013. [ 42 ] From this it is clear that there are currently a total of 103 cases of ongoing litigation involving Mr. Doncaster. [ 43 ] This number, on its face, strikes me as astounding. I have not had the time to inquire as to how many outstanding judgments, or costs orders there are against Mr. Doncaster. At some point that may be an inquiry worth pursuing. [ 44 ] In light of Justice Coady’s findings in the court below and from what I have seen on this and other matters on our Court’s docket, it seems to me that litigants such as Mr.

Doncaster appear to fall into a camp of persons who claim an unconditional, and unassailable “right to appeal” every step, in every case. Persons who hold such a view are seriously misguided or ill-informed. No right is absolute. In our free and democratic society every right, privilege or interest is balanced and held in check by other rights, privileges and interests. The opportunity to appeal is regulated by long held practices and rules, by which deadlines, substance, style and content are strictly enforced.

Those unwilling or unprepared to follow those strictures do so at their peril. [ 45 ] 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’être for access to justice. [ 46 ] 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. [ 47 ] More often than not, the individuals in this latter group whom I would dub “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. [ 48 ] 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”. [ 49 ] For all of these reasons I find that this is a proper case for me to exercise my discretion under CPR 90.42 and order a stay of this proceeding CA 413884 until such time as Mr.

Doncaster has fully satisfied the costs order imposed against him by Justice Coady in Halifax No. 398426, and in addition, has posted security for costs in the amount of $3,500 in the present appeal. Saunders, J.A. Appendix “A” List of Proceedings with Ralph Ivan Doncaster a.k.a. Ralph Doncaster a.k. Ralph I. Doncaster, named as a party, current to April 29, 2013. Nova Scotia Court of Appeal: Court Case No. Court Party Title Year Started Name of Proceeding 1. CA No 388212 NSCA Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field 2. CA No 393423 NSCA Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v.

Jennifer Lynn Field 3. CA No 413884 NSCA Appellant 2013 Ralph Evan Doncaster v. Chignecto- Central Regional School Board and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia 4. CAC No 413496 NSCA Appellant 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Field and the Attorney General of Canada 5. CA No 400779 NSCA Respondent 2012 Andrea Marie Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field and Ralph Ivan Doncaster 6. CA No 404979 NSCA Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field

7. CA No 404981 NSCA Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field 8. CA No 406486 NSCA Respondent 2012 Andrea Marie Doncaster, Viola Marie Doncaster, and Ivan Ralph Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field and Ralph Ivan Doncaster 9. CAC No. 408973 NSCA Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Her Majesty the Queen 10. CA No. 410231 NSCA Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Chignecto- Central Regional School Board and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia 11. CAC No. 410878 NSCA Appellant 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Her Majesty the Queen 12. CAC No. 410901 NSCA Appellant 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v.

Her Majesty the Queen 13. CA No. 413485 NSCA Appellant 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field Nova Scotia Supreme Court (General Division): Court Case No. Court Party Title Year Started Name of Proceeding 14. ST No. 406972 NSSC Defendant 2012 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. RALPH DONCASTER 15. ST No. 388641 NSSC Defendant 2012 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA v. RALPH DONCASTER 16. ST No. 372044 NSSC Defendant 2012 JENNIFER LYNN FIELD v. RALPH IVAN DONCASTER 17. Hfx No. 398426 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board 18.

Hfx No 391759 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Doncaster v. Her Majesty the Queen 19. ST No 388609 NSSC Defendant 2012 Her Majesty the Queen Vs. Ralph Doncaster 20. ST No 274911 NSSC Defendant 2006 In the matter of an assessment or assessments by the Minister of National Revenue under the Excise Tax Act, against: Ralph Doncaster 21. CRT No. 401579 NSSC Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ralph Doncaster 22. ST No. 408132 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Doncaster v. Her Majesty the Queen 23. CRT No. 410837 NSSC Accused 2013 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ralph Doncaster 24. CRT No. 408987 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Doncaster v.

Her Majesty the Queen 25. ST No. 406080 NSSC Defendant 2012 The Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Ralph I. Doncaster 26. Hfx No. 391466 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Patricia Thomson 27. Hfx No. 391030 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Holly Thompson and Joyce Custance 28. Hfx No 391028 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Girl Guides of Canada 29. Hfx No 391027 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Janet M. Stevenson 30. Hfx No 391026 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. William Harvey 31. Hfx No 390758 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Janet M.

Stevenson 32. Hfx No 390641 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. RCMP Enfield Detachment 33. Hfx No 390505 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Craig Burnett

34. Hfx No 390503 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Cheryl Ponee, RCMP Enfield Detachment 35. CRH No 390099 NSSC Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ralph Ivan Doncaster 36. Hfx No 389866 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. RCMP Enfield Detachment 37. Hfx No 375132 NSSC Defendant 2012 Jennifer Lynn Field v. Ralph Ivan Doncaster, DVIA 38. CRT No 413736 NSSC Accused 2013 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ralph Ivan Doncaster 39. Hfx No 393762 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Susan Ward 40. ST No 393916 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v.

Jennifer Lynn Field and The Attorney General of Canada 41. CRT No 398333 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Lynn Field 42. Hfx No 398420 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Cheryl Ponee 43. CRH No 399419 NSSC Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ralph Ivan Doncaster 44. CRH No 402619 NSSC Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v. Ralph Ivan Doncaster 45. Hfx No 404956 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Chignecto- Central Regional School Board 46. Hfx No 405655 NSSC Plaintiff 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Deanna Koch 47. CRT No 405763 NSSC Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v.

Ralph Ivan Doncaster 48. Hfx No 409789 NSSC Appellant 2012 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. HMTQ 49. Hfx No 411357 NSSC Plaintiff 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. RCMP Enfield Detachment and Attorney General for Nova Scotia 50. Hfx No 412325 NSSC Plaintiff 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Royal Bank of Canada 51. CRT No 413057 NSSC Apellant 2013 Ralph Ivan Doncaster v. Her Majesty the Queen 52. SFSNMCA- 080378 Supreme Court - Truro Respondent 2012 Viola Doncaster, Ivan Doncaster v. Jennifer Field, Ralph Doncaster 53. STCIV-081213 Supreme Court - Truro Respondent 2012 Andrea Doncaster v. Ralph Doncaster, Jennifer Field 54.

STD-079303 Supreme Court – Truro Petitioner 2012 Ralph Doncaster v. Jennifer Field Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Family Division): Court Case No. Court Party Title Name of Proceeding none Nova Scotia Family Court: Court Case No. Court Party Title Year Started Name of Proceeding 55. FSNMCA- 078805 Family Court, Shubenacadie Respondent 2012 Jennifer Field v. Ralph Doncaster

Small Claims Courts: Court Case No. Court Party Title Year Started Name of Proceeding 56. SCT No. 370341 Sm Cl - Truro Claimant 2011 Ralph Doncaster v. Home Trust 57. SCT No. 370340 Sm Cl – Truro Claimant 2011 Ralph Doncaster v. Nitcom IT Solutions Inc. 58. SCT No. 370338 Sm Cl – Truro Claimaint 2011 Ralph Doncaster v. Beacon Insurance , MJR Collection Services Ltd. Nova Scotia Provincial Court: Court Case No.

Court Name of Proceeding 59. 1710694 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2006 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 60. 170699 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2006 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 61. 1710702 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2006 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 62. 1893432 Sydney Provincial Court Accused 2008 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 63. 2403585 Antigonish Provincial Court Accused 2011 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 64. 2404694 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 65. 2414376 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 66. 2418002 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 67. 2423583 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 68. 2423949 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 69. 2426091 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 70. 2426092 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 71. 2426093 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 72. 2426095 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 73. 2433853 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 74. 2433854 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 75. 2433855 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 76. 2434422 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 77. 2434423 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 78. 2435234 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 79. 2435235 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 80. 2435236 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 81. 2435237 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 82. 2436205 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster

83. 2436212 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 84. 2441120 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 85. 2441123 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 86. 2444669 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 87. 2444670 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 88. 2444671 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 89. 2444690 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 90. 2447160 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 91. 2447161 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 92. 2447162 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 93. 2447163 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 94. 2447164 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 95. 2449641 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 96. 2449647 Dartmouth Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 97. 2449896 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 98. 2449897 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 99. 2449898 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 100. 2455899 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 101. 2480117 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 102. 2509914 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster 103. 2509915 Truro Provincial Court Accused 2012 Her Majesty the Queen v Ralph Ivan Doncaster