Bridges v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2012 NSSC 249

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridges v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2012 NSSC 249 Date: 20120629 Docket: Amh. No. 346788 Registry: Halifax Between: Eleanor Bridges Plaintiff v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, Scott Beattie, Ms. MacDougall of Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company Halifax Claims Office, Canadian Independent Adjusters ’ Association (CIAA), Boyne Clarke Barristers and Solicitors, George Clarke, Michael F. LeBlanc, Nicole E.

Godbout, Marsh Adjustment Bureau Limited, Harold Miller, Len Stevens, MacDonald Chisholm Incorporated, Sandra (Sandy) Faulkner, Tony W. Faulkner, The Insurance Bureau of Canada, Marlene Landry, Strum Environmental, Jim Henwood, The Town of Oxford, Mayor Jenkins of The Town of Oxford, Mr. White CEO Town of Oxford, Huestis Ritch Barristers and Solicitors, W. Augustus (Gus) Richardson, The Co-Operators General Insurance Company, and Tammy Goodwin Defendants Judge: The Honourable Justice Peter P.

Rosinski Heard: June 27, 2012, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Plaintiff, Eleanor Bridges, Self-Represented Nancy Murray, Q.C., for the Defendants, Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, Scott Beattie and Deborah MacDougall Eric LeDrew, for the Defendant, Canadian Independent Adjusters Association ( “ CIAA ” ) Peter M. Rogers, Q.C., for the Defendants, Marsh Adjustment Bureau Limited, Harold Miller and Len Stevens Greg Hardy, for the Defendants, The Insurance Bureau of Canada and Marlene Landry Alden Blaikie, for the Defendants, The Town of Oxford, Mayor Jenkins and Mr.

White Stacey Gerrard, for the Defendants, Boyne Clarke, Barristers and Solicitors, George Clarke, Michael F. LeBlanc, Nicole E. Godbout, Huestis Ritch, Barristers and Solicitors, and W. Augustus (Gus) Richardson Michael E. Dunphy / Joseph Burke, for the Defendants, MacDonald Chisholm Incorporated, Sandra (Sandy) Faulkner and Tony W. Faulkner William MacInnes, Q.C., for the Defendants

Strum Environmental and Jim Henwood Clarence Beckett, Q.C. / Michael Scott, for the Defendants, The Co-Operators General Insurance Company and Tammy Goodwin By the Court : Introduction [ 1 ] In order to ensure that our system of justice is accessible, it allows litigants to represent themselves. Although not legally trained, with the conscientious help that administration staff regularly provide, self represented litigants are able to navigate their way through sometimes complicated and technical legal channels.

While courts must be understanding of the difficulty that self represented litigants have in properly preparing, presenting and arguing their cases, some litigants abuse the court process. While there are degrees of abuse, there are some exceptional situations where the abuse is so great that the court may intervene to prevent a further abuse, otherwise the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. [ 2 ] The Defendants in this case argue that this is one such exceptional case. I agree. Background [ 3 ] On April 8, 2011 Ms.

Bridges filed her Notice of Action at the Amherst Justice Centre, Nova Scotia. She also filled out a “ Court data information sheet ” which included confirmation that her full and complete civic address was: 14 Clarence Street, Amherst, N.S. B4N 3N9. [ 4 ] She signed this document that day which also included: I certify that any court document served at the civic address noted above will be deemed received by me personally. [ 5 ] And: If my civic address noted above changes, I undertake to immediately notify the Prothonotary, in writing of my new address, where I can receive documents relative to this action.

If I do not do this, I understand my action or defence could be dismissed without further notice to me. Date: April 8, 2011 Eleanor Bridges (signed signature) I, Eleanor Bridges (signed signature), acknowledge that the (Deputy) Prothonotary explained Civil Procedure Rule 34 to me and I undertake to comply with this rule. Date: April 8, 2011

Eleanor Bridges (signed signature) [ 6 ] On that same day Ms.

Bridges also signed a “ Personal Representation Form ” which read: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - please read and initial to acknowledge (E.B. initials) I have been advised by the staff of the Court Administration office to seek legal advice from a qualified member of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society. (E.B. initials) I understand that if I do not obtain legal counsel that there are risks involved in pursuing a court action without legal representation. (E.B. initials) I do not hold the Court Administration Office responsible for any of the documentation or information I received while filing this action on my own. (E.B. initials) I have been given the phone numbers for Nova Scotia Legal Aid, (902-543-4658), Dalhousie Legal Aid Service (902- 424-8105 or email: legalaid@dal.ca), Legal Information Society’s Lawyer Referral Service (1-800-665-9779 - toll free) and have been advised of the services provided by each.

PLEASE NOTE: This information is needed should we have to contact you. It will remain in the court file. [ 7 ] Though self represented, such litigants still have the responsibility to become informed, be diligent and respectful in their litigation.

Though opportunities were made available to the Plaintiff herein to proceed in an informed, and procedurally correct manner, she has displayed a determination to go it alone, and in particular to the extent that she has now ignored numerous Court directions and Orders. [ 8 ] The Statement of Claim listed 27 corporate and individual Defendants in total - surely a case of overkill. [ 9 ] Ms. Bridges swore some affidavits of service purporting that she herself effected service of her Notice of Action on Defendants.

A litigant may not serve documents in their own proceeding - Civil Procedure Rule ( “ CPR ” ) 31.04. [ 10 ] The Statement of Claim asserts that on or about September 23, 1999, a sewer backup occurred causing an oil spill at a residential property owned by Ms. Bridges, her husband Lawrence (Larry) Bridges and their son Michael Bridges. The property was located at 5096 Main Street, Oxford, N.S., and Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company ( “ Dominion ” ) had issued a homeowners policy in standard form to Ms.

Bridges. [ 11 ] The claim against the Defendants allege, beyond contractual a breach by Dominion, inter alia : - Breaches of the Privacy Act ; - threats by Harold Miller of Marsh Adjustment Bureau Ltd.;

- axing of the front door to a property where Ms. Bridges stayed one night which she suggested somehow involved Sandra Faulkner (an insurance company representative); - organized crime within the insurance industry involving many if not all of the Defendants herein; - conspiracy by a number of the Defendants “ to defraud me, cheat me out of my insurance benefits ” . [ 12 ] I infer that the Statement of Claim is the work of Ms.

Bridges herself without the advice of legal counsel. [ 13 ] On September 8, 2011, Justice Murphy, after hearing from CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc., removed CGI Canada and CGI - IBS Habitational Insurance Tracking System from the list of Defendants as they were not “ persons ” . [ 14 ] The inclusion of some of the other Defendants is also questionable in light of the drafting of the Statement of Claim: 1) I note the basis of the claims bear a remarkable resemblance to an earlier action against Dominion filed by the Plaintiff on December 28, 2000 - see Exhibit “ D ” to the affidavit of Scott Beattie, sworn August 22, 2011. 2) The Canadian Independent Adjusters Association, The Insurance Bureau of Canada, The Cooperators General Insurance Company are alleged to have breached the Privacy Act by placing her confidential information on the internet and sharing it with “ insurance offices across God knows where ” ; 3) there is no express individualized pleading made against Strum Environmental, Jim Henwood, the Town of Oxford, Mayor Jenkins of the Town of Oxford, Mr.

White, CEO Town of Oxford, W. Augustus (Gus) Richardson, Huestis Ritch Barristers and Solicitors, and Tammy Goodwin, yet they are included as Defendants. [ 15 ] These latter two groups of Defendants have been named without any apparent or understandable bases in the pleadings.

While I accept that pleadings may be amended in appropriate cases, in my view, their inclusion as Defendants in all the circumstances is very questionable. [ 16 ] Perhaps these matters are the product of a well intentioned, yet not legally trained self represented litigant? [ 17 ] When viewed objectively, the entire circumstances in this case do not support that view. The circumstances suggest that Ms.

Bridges is deliberately making (in part) scandalous allegations, while herself not actively participating in the judicial process, and ignoring court directions and orders. [ 18 ] Defences were filed herein between June 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011. The Motion for Dismissal of the Plaintiff ’ s Claims [ 19 ] On February 3, 2012 the Defendants filed a Motion seeking:

a) Dismissal of the Plaintiff ’ s claims against them with costs, as an abuse of process;

b) an Order to indemnify the moving parties for losses resulting from the abuse, payable forthwith;

c) such other relief. [ 20 ] That Motion was to be heard April 23 - 24, 2012 (dates were tentatively set by Murphy, J. on September 8, 2011 and fixed by Hood, J. on December 22, 2011). Ms. Bridges in writing only to the court, effectively requested an adjournment of the April 23 - 24 dates as she was wintering in Florida - see my decision granting the adjournment and setting the issue of costs for the adjournment for hearing on June 13, 2012 - 2012 NSSC 169 . In that decision I set specific filing deadlines, and directed Ms.

Bridges to attend court June 13 and 27 - 28, 2012. [ 21 ] On June 13 I rendered an oral costs decision in the absence of Ms. Bridges. Therein I reiterated some of the conduct of Ms. Bridges that was troubling the court. I was very satisfied that Ms. Bridges had sufficient notice of the hearings set for June 13 and June 27 - 28, 2012. The Position of the Defendants [ 22 ] The written brief summarizes the Defendants position as:

i) In the event that the abuse of process motion is unsuccessful, a number of Defendants have indicated in correspondence to the Court on file herein their intention to bring a variety of other dismissal motions, including motions based on res judicata in relation to a case arising from the same cause of action having been settled for money and dismissed, limitations of actions, and substantive grounds relating to the facts alleged, the non-involvement of particular defendants in events that form the apparent basis of some or all of the claims, the absence of causes of action against some of the Defendants, and a variety of other Defendant-specific reasons.

These motions will require the collective expenditure of significant amounts of legal fees and judicial time.

The present motion is an effort to dispose of the case on a single common ground that is more efficient for the parties and the Court on a claim that appears to have been started for the purpose of causing expense and embarrassment, rather than for actually vindicating legal rights through following Civil Procedure Rules designed to dispose of civil controversies in a “just, speedy and inexpensive” manner. ii) The Plaintiff’s failure to provide a valid designated address for service; her designation of addresses for service at which attempts to serve her have failed; her failure to respond to Demand for Particulars, her failure to file an Affidavit of Documents, her failure to acknowledge correspondence, her failure to attend at Court, and the scandalous nature of her pleadings, combined, amount to an abuse of the Court. iii) Everything Ms.

Bridges has done is consistent with her not wanting to have her claim adjudicated, but only wanting to file it and keep it alive, to create as much expense and nuisance as possible, for as long as possible. The Courts are full of serious litigants facing increasing delays in getting to a trial. The Plaintiff ’ s Position [ 23 ] Ms. Bridges ’ position is not known. Analysis [ 24 ] Ms. Bridges has not since filing her Notice of Action provided any factual basis for her claims, nor shown any interest in presenting her position to the Court.

[ 25 ] She was notified of each of the following court appearances, but did not file any materials or appear by agent or in person:

i) September 8, 2011 - Defendants Motion for Order for Case Management (Service effected by leaving documents at her designated address - 14 Clarence Street, Amherst, Nova Scotia on August 26, 2011 - Camille LeBlanc - I note that the Court ’ s scheduling office had sent her a letter at that same address on July 13, 2011 (Tracking Number TM 131771069 CA) which was returned as address “ vacant ” / “ recipient not located at address provided ” ; moreover on September 26, 2011 she faxed a letter to the Amherst Justice Centre advising that her new designated address was Apt. #6 - 80 Lyman Street, Truro, N.S. and she conveyed her interest in 14 Clarence Street, Amherst to her husband by Quit Claim Deed dated September 9, 2011 - (January 27, 2012 sworn affidavit of Nancy Murray, Q.C.); ii) Justice Murphy had set a case management conference to be held at the Halifax Law Courts on December 22, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. to deal with procedural matters and provide directions in the case (I found as a fact Ms.

Bridges had constructive notice on October 4,2011 and actual notice thereof by December 19, 2011 since her letter of that date expressly referenced the December 22 “ hearing ” ). Moreover the Defendants attempts to serve her at Apt. #6 - 80 Lyman Street, Truro were unsuccessful - Exh. “ B ” to affidavit of Nancy Murray, Q.C., sworn December 15, 2011. By letter faxed from Florida Nov. 30, 2011 Ms. Bridges advised the Amherst Justice Centre that her new address was 1457 Whisper Lake Blvd., Sebring, Florida, 33870 USA. Justice Hood was satisfied that Ms.

Bridges had sufficient notice of the conference on Dec. 22 and set filing and hearing dates for the Defendants ’ Abuse of Process Motion to be heard April 23 - 24, 2012 at Halifax, N.S. iii) I found as a fact that Ms. Bridges had actual notice of the April 23 - 24 hearing dates by February 22, 2012. Ms. Bridges sent a letter dated April 5, 2012 to, and received April 13, 2012 at, the Amherst Justice Centre - It was an example of a communication that once again was not copied to any of the Defendants and did not find its way to the Halifax Law Courts and my attention until April 20, 2012.

While it was then forwarded to the Defendants by the Court it arrived sufficiently late such that they were unaware until the morning of April 23 that Ms. Bridges was requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. that day. [ 26 ] On none of these occasions for which Ms. Bridges had notice, did she appear, or file any materials. Her attitude may be summed up by her statements in her April 5 letter / affidavit: I will not be able to return to attend the hearing in April 2012 which is on the 23 rd .

I believe, but want it to be postponed (maybe I’ll set it for mid September 2012) and I will contact the court again to set up a date. [ 27 ] Needless to say perhaps but, the Court having promptly sent letters dated April 26, 2012 and June 14, 2012 to her last designated address (at Apt. #6, 80 Lyman Street) to her attention and separately to her husband ’ s attention, and to Apt. #1 - 80 Lyman Street to her son Michael ’ s attention, has heard nothing in response.

The Defendants have also made many separate attempts to contact her at that designated address. [ 28 ] The property at 80 Lyman Street, Truro, is owned by Lawrence “ Larry ” John Bridges, Michael Andrew Bridges and Agata Cichoszewska as of August 31, 2011 - Exh. “ R ” to affidavit of William MacInnes, Q.C. sworn June 19, 2012: iv) Ms. Bridges did not appear, nor anyone on her behalf on June 27, 2012 either.

No materials were filed. [ 29 ] It is a final reminder to the court that in spite of its extraordinary efforts to provide the Plaintiff an opportunity to do so, she has not in any intelligible way explained or tried to explain her absence (or that of an agent on her behalf) from the various court appearances herein, nor why she has not responded to the Defendants ’ Motion, the nature of which she was aware of in the fall of 2011, and the specifics of which she was aware by February 22, 2012.

[ 30 ] The Defendants also note that Ms. Bridges has not:

i) Responded to their demand for particulars; they suggest she has not done so because if she responded properly the answers would reveal the many flaws in her pleadings; ii) filed an Affidavit of Documents as required within 45 days of the close of pleadings - see CPR 14.08, 15.01, 15.02 and 15.03 (the close of pleadings are defined in CPR 38.11); iii) not kept them up to date with her designated address changes, and has unilaterally communicated with the Court and sometimes directly with their clients while she was aware they had counsel acting on their behalfs. iv) has continued to make scandalous allegations as recently as her April 5, 2012 affidavit for example: Following the advice of my doctor, I came to the good ol’ USA, to have a rest, and to take some time to recuperate, as I was in poor health [since having to sue and serve the entire Canadian Insurance mob and all the lawyers involved (mine and theirs), and in the past years, I have experienced many mob type threats, and recently was almost killed when I went to Montreal to serve CGI over CGI’s spy network and storage of my personal information and because my confidential information was given to CGI by Harold Miller, Len Stevens and Marsh Adjustments (as per Marlene Landry, all adjusters give the claims, etc. details to CGI, so they can printout their illegal databases, etc.),... ...

CGI has/had my personal, private and confidential information in their possession and CGI passed it around, without my permission and without my knowledge). I have proved, by way of my photos taken while in the process of serving CGI, that a Conservative Loving, Jewish Spy Ring, was there and helping out CGI, and nearly killed me (and they are/were helping the Canadian Conservative government(s), as Protectors of the insurance mob/gang, since its beginnings). ...

These crazy events have brought to light, an International Conservative Jewish Spy Ring, that obviously works with the Canadian one, the same one that has been spying for years in Ontario and in Nova Scotia, that not only uses adults, but young adults too (school age). Now, I have made a terrible discovery, which will shock not only Canada, and the USA, but the World, which I am going to explain, herein. ...

I have discovered the ID of the International Conservative, Conservative-Republican Jewish Mob Spy Ring AND ITS LEADER, Brian Altman of CRF, located here in CENTRAL Florida, USA, but which has infiltrated Canada, all of which I can prove, by their non-business like methods, like their recent uncalled for violent, vicious, hostile, attack on me, and their total disregard for the law by violationing not only America ’s Laws, but Canada ’s as well ... (this spy ring has several violations of the Privacy Act of the good ol’USA,...

I further offer, as proof of their gangster spy network connections and CRF’s spying on me, that they, CRF, committed further crime(

s) by their illegal snatching/stealing of my photo (said stolen photo, was enough to ruin CRF and Brian Altman, so they had it removed) from a Canadian owned website service provider, known online as Bravenet.com & Bravehost.com and also known legally as, Bravenet Web Services Inc., ... Furthermore, my computer was identified and systematically wiped out, on or about October 27, 2011, and it stored my backups, so my backups of this photo are gone, at this time . ... I will therefore, not be able to return in April .

I am writing this because I understand there is some sort of hearing-discovery, or whatever, etc., and it may become necessary that I am needed here , in the good ol’ USA, as of a direct and/or indirect result of my findings re: that Brian Altman,like George Clakre, and Boyne Clarke, are the ring leaders of an International Conservative Jewish Spy Network, which has infiltrated if not the USA’s insurance industry (e.g.

CGI in Texas, in Ohio), it most certainly has infiltrated Canada’s insurance industry, e.g. such as the Conservatives being the insurance industry’s long-time protector, then and now, and the current Harper government, his representative Scott Armstrong, Scott Armstrong’s secretary, Sandra Faulkner, [her long time relationship with the insurance industry], ... George Clarke is definitely the leader for the criminal International Conservative Jewish Spy Ring in Nova Scotia, and maybe all of Canada, ...

It is possible, these young boys, (the one at the JFK NYC airport, just back from Tel Aviv, and the other, waiting outside for me at CGI’s World Headquarters in Montreal, then seen later again, with another boy holding a tire iron, as they came towards me, only stopping because I took their photo, or the boy in my old computer classes spying for Principal George Laird and Vice Principal Margaret Norton (she goes by Marg too, or even, the talk lanky man, showing up for his judge friend, during the setting down of the Jim and Judy Ryan case, etc.), are in fact Mossad recruits, but one thing they all are, are members of this International Conservative Jewish Spy Ring, operating in the good ol’ USA, as well as operating in Canada.

[ 31 ] I note that this kind of allegation has previously been made by Ms. Bridges in her December 19, 2011 fax to the Amherst Justice Centre: Date: Monday December 19, 2011 With all due respect, I will not be able to attend the hearing on December 22, 2011, as you may refer to my letter previously faxed to the court regarding my poor health and that under doctor orders, I have taken a medical leave... Furthermore, I, as mentioned in the fax to the court on November 30, 2011, sent an updated, a more accurate Affidavit of Service, of my service, of my notice of action (Amh.

No. 346788) to CGI at their head office in Montreal, Quebec, on May 27, 2011, before noonday, as it paints a more realistic picture of this nasty insurance crime spree, perpetuated against me , which, shows (photos included) a spy network, a plan to capture me, to kill me and at the very minimum, to threaten me once again (hooded boy with a tire iron, metal rod, etc. held up in his hand, by his chest, with his spy spotter (a strawberry blond haired boy , that spotted me outside, yet I had never seen him before-ever, but he sure knew me on site! [All underlining and bolding as in the original] [ 32 ] On file as early as April 12, 2011 there is a memo from court staff member, Bonnie Graham regarding this Action to other staff, Marney Gilroy and Brian Haynes (Sheriff at Amherst Justice Centre): Attached is a copy of a note from Ms.

Bridges. Please note at the bottom of her request for a baggage inspection and metal detectors when her case comes to trial. [ 33 ] To date the Defendants have been prompted, largely by Ms. Bridges ’ unresponsiveness and cavalier attitude, to file the following affidavits which were listed in the filed February 3, 2012 Motion for Dismissal for Abuse of Process: 1. The Affidavit of Nancy Murray sworn on January 31, 2012. 2. Affidavit of Nancy Murray Sworn January 27,2012. 3. Affidavit of Nancy Murray Sworn January 30, 2011. 4. Affidavit of Nancy Murray Sworn December 15, 2011. 5.

Affidavit of Scott Beattie sworn August 22, 2011. 6. Affidavit of Nancy Schofield dated September 1, 2011. 7. Affidavit of Nancy Schofield dated December 15, 2011. 8. Affidavit of Nancy Schofield dated December 15, 2011.

9. Affidavit of Nancy Schofield dated December 15, 2011. 10. Affidavit of Nancy Schofield dated December 15, 2011. 11. Affidavit of Nancy Schofield dated December 15, 2011. 12. Affidavit of Camille LeBlanc dated July 7, 2011. 13. Affidavit of Camille LeBlanc dated August 26, 2011. 14. Affidavit of Camille LeBlanc dated October 19, 2011. 15. Affidavit of Steve Chapman dated October 30, 2011. 16. The Affidavit of Eric LeDrew sworn on January 25, 2012. 17. The Affidavit of Dianne Power sworn on January 25, 2012. 18. The Affidavit of Laurie Brown sworn on or before January 31, 2012. 19.

The Affidavit of Stacey Gerrard sworn on January 31, 2012. 20. The Affidavit of Sarah Drysdale sworn on December 16, 2011. 21. The Affidavit of Clarence Beckett, sworn on January 25, 2012. 22. The Affidavit of Greg Hardy sworn on January 30, 2012. [ 34 ] In addition thereto the Defendants rely on these affidavits filed herein: 1. William L. MacInnes, Q.C. sworn June 19, 2012; 2. Tammy L. Reid, sworn September 7, 2011; 3. Nancy Murray, Q.C., sworn May 9, 2012 (disbursements) 4. Nancy Schofield, sworn April 13, 2012

5. Nancy Schofield, sworn May 9, 2012 6. Wallis Mingo, sworn May 18, 2012 7.

Clarence Beckett, sworn April 5, 2012 [ 35 ] The Defendants also note that her allegations are otherwise legally flawed due to limitation of actions periods having elapsed; res judicata in relation to a settlement of the case arising from the same cause of action; the pleadings bearing no connection to some of the named Defendants, and that the pleadings do not conform to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules - much of the relevant supporting evidence appears in Scott Beattie ’ s August 22, 2011 affidavit. [ 36 ] Notably the Plaintiff commenced a similarly self drafted action against the Manufacturer ’ s Life Insurance Co.; Manulife, Manulife Insurance Canada; Boyne Clarke and Michael F.

LeBlanc Amherst No. 351568 on June 30, 2011 seeking payment for compensation related to group benefits from the teachers group benefits long term disability insurance plan and associated remedies - Exh. “ H ” Affidavit of Scott Beattie, sworn August 22, 2011. Findings [ 37 ] The evidence of the Defendants as presented in their affidavits was not contested by the Plaintiff; though known to her as it all came to the court and her in written form. [ 38 ] As I examine the affidavits, I conclude that they present credible and reliable evidence. Specifically I find that:

i) In drafting her Statement of Claim and choosing the Defendants as parties, Ms.

Bridges has done so for an illegitimate purpose - her purpose is not to pursue an action in a bona fide manner against the Defendants herein; ii) In the time since her filing of the Notice of Action she has deliberately avoided participating in the litigation in an attempt to frustrate the judicial process; iii) She has provided no evidence of any import, which could give an air of reality to any suggestion that she is a bona fide litigant; iv) She has had sufficient notice of the hearings on September 8, 2011; December 22, 2011; April 23 - 24, 2012; June 13, 2012 and June 27 - 28, 2012; yet has chosen not to appear at any of them or file any evidence or arguments. [ 39 ] In

summary, her actions and inactions constitute an abuse of the court process. [ 40 ] The thorny issue is what remedy should the court allow to answer such abuse of the process and financial and non-financial effects that she has caused to the Defendants? [ 41 ] The Defendants seek a dismissal of the Action against all the Defendants.

[ 42 ] I queried counsel about whether within the unfocussed and vexatious pleadings, one or more potentially sustainable causes of action may lie which should not be dismissed. [ 43 ] Counsel in effect responded that, if they are there, they are so poorly identified / articulated that the Plaintiff could always commence a separate new focussed action (provided limitation periods, etc. were no bar), and that it is unfair to perpetrate the existing action on speculation of the mere chance that such causes of action exist. [ 44 ] I also queried counsel about whether a dismissal, which is usually considered a “ last resort ” remedy, was necessary here if, for example, I ordered the Plaintiff to post security for costs by a fixed date, and failing that the action would be dismissed (with costs) presuming that such lesser remedy could restore the integrity of the justice system that an abuse otherwise undermines? [ 45 ] Counsel argued that in these circumstances, where there is no bona fide claim or litigant, security for costs is not an effectual response to the problem - as distinguished from the facts in Ocean v.

Economical Mutual Insurance Company 2011 NSSC 144 per Smith, ACJ where Ms.

Ocean clearly had: a bona fide action arising out of a motor vehicle collision; had legal counsel at the outset, and participated meaningfully for extended periods of time, including up to the point of trial. [ 46 ] I concluded that in this case the circumstances are highly unusual and do not support a finding that a security for costs order would be effectual presuming that I could even grant such a remedy under Civil Procedure Rule 88 (Abuse of Process) at this juncture without a specific motion requesting such relief. [ 47 ] I accept as well that a deliberate inactivity and delay by a litigant, which demonstrates a lack of a bona fide intent to prosecute a claim, may permit a court to dismiss an action as an abuse of process, without necessarily applying the usual test for dismissal for want of prosecution and requiring the Defendants to prove prejudice - Hurley v.

Cooperators General Insurance Co. (1998) 169 NSR (2d) (CA) per Flinn, JA; and to similar effect in the context of striking a defence for failure to attend for discovery - Werry v. Van de Wiel 2005 NSCA 131 per Hamilton, JA. [ 48 ] This is so because it is the respect for and confidence in the court process itself that is undermined thereby. That kind of abuse of the court process is thus separate and apart from any complaint of prejudice a litigant may experience because of the abuse.

Abuse of that kind can cause the Court to conclude that only the draconian response of dismissal is sufficient to convey the Court ’ s disapproval of the litigant ’ s conduct. [ 49 ] While there may be prejudice to the Defendants in such cases, it is not the focus, as it might be in a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, due to a party ’ s conduct vis-à- vis another party. [ 50 ] I realize that this action is in its early stages; and that Ms.

Bridges has not once had an appearance in court to present her position regarding her pleadings, which I note are not necessarily abusive merely because they are not entirely sustainable - CPR 88.04. [ 51 ] Civil Procedure Rule 88.05 requires me to consider, and I have, whether any allegations that are abusive can be separated out from any non-abusive pleadings - I conclude that if the abusive allegations were stripped away from the Statement of Claim, the level of abuse of process that I find elsewhere in the conduct of this proceeding by the Plaintiff does not materially diminish the significance of the overall abuse apparent throughout. [ 52 ] In this respect, I found the comments of Scanlan, J. in CIBC Mortgage Corp. v.

Ofume 2004 NSSC 132 to be helpful, although decided under the 1972 Civil Procedure Rules ,. [ 53 ] On a review of all the circumstances which reach back to 1999, and involve many defendants, who have had very real financial and non financial consequences as a result of the Plaintiff ’ s action herein, I am completely satisfied that, not only is Ms. Bridges conduct

an abuse of the court process but, only a dismissal of her action will sufficiently express the Court ’ s disapproval. [ 54 ] I therefore order that Action Amherst No. 346788 be and is hereby dismissed with costs. Costs [ 55 ] My decision, though on an interlocutory motion, terminates the proceeding. [ 56 ] The Defendants have argued that CPR 77.02 and the Court ’ s inherent jurisdiction allows me to order costs against the Plaintiff on a greater than party and party costs basis under Tariff “ C ” (even applying a multiplier of 4 to the $2000 maximum guideline amount or $8000 for each Defendant). [ 57 ] The Defendants claim:

i) Nancy Murray, Q.C. for: - The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. - Scott Beattie - Deborah MacDougall (named McDougall in the Action) $25,000 plus disbursements of $1179.97 plus $106.26 (noting her client ’ s bills to date appropriate $78,000) which is more than the $8000 Tariff “ C ” which she described as the “ minimum ” appropriate amount. ii) Peter Rogers, Q.C. for: - Marsh Adjustment Bureau Limited - Harold Miller - Len Stevens (Mr. Rogers appeared at each of the five court appearances) a “ healthy ” costs award similar to what Ms. Murray requested. ($8000)

iii) Peter Rogers, Q.C. appearing for: - Eric LeDrew counsel for: - Canadian Independent Adjusters Assoc. (Mr. LeDrew represented his client in court twice out of five appearances and in his solicitor capacity) a “ healthy ” costs award ($8000). iv) Clarence Beckett, Q.C. for: - Cooperators General Insurance Co. - Tammy Goodwin (Mr. Beckett or someone from his firm was present for all five court appearances) $8000.

v) Gregory Hardy for: - The Insurance Bureau of Canada - Marlene Landry A similar costs award ($8000). vi) William MacInnes, Q.C. for: - Strum Environmental $8000 plus $285.20 disbursements (related to his title search costs for his June 19, 2012 sworn affidavit). vii) Stacey Gerrard for: - Boyne Clarke - George Clarke

- Michael LeBlanc - Nicole Godbout - Huestis Ritch - W. Augustus Richardson $8000 viii) Joseph Burke (for Michael Dunphy) for: - MacDonald Chisholm Inc. - Sandra Faulkner - Tony W. Faulkner $8000 ix) Nancy Murray, Q.C. (for Alden Blaikie who appeared twice in Court) for: - The Town of Oxford - Mayor Jenkins (Town of Oxford) - Mr. White (CEO Town of Oxford) $8000

x) Jim Henwood (possibly not even served with the Notice of Action - not represented or present) - therefore no costs claimed / awarded. [ 58 ] Costs follow the result - the moving parties (Defendants) have been successful - CPR 77.03(3). [ 59 ] A costs award should do justice between the parties - CPR 77.02(1). Normally, judges should consider the applicable Tariff - CPR 77.06.

[60] At its core the costs decision should be based on an examination of the objectives of a costs award as applied to thecircumstances of the instant case. [61] I observe that having found an abuse of the court process under CPR 88.01, I may through 88.02(1)(

d) consider indemnifyingthe Defendants “for losses resulting from the abuse” (which the Notice of Motion specifically requested) and that CPR 77.09(1)(l)therefore is also applicable. “Losses arising from the abuse” in my opinion are usually associated with the notion of “thrown awaycosts” - [see eg. Webber v. Investors Group Financial Services inc. 2012 NSSC 201 per Moir, J.]. [62] Should I indemnify the Defendants per CPR 77.09 or merely determine costs on the usual basis (party and party costs) whichpresumes only a substantial contribution [see Williams v.

Williams 1998 NSCA 195 , [1998] NSJ 498 (CA)], rather thanindemnification of a successful party’s actual incurred costs (solicitor client costs)? [63] I remind myself that ordering indemnification is also an exceptional remedy; although having found an abuse of process, it isreasonable for the Defendants to claim indemnification “for losses arising from the abuse”, or based on the general principle that thecourt has discretion to order those costs awards that “will do justice between the parties”. [64] I have not lost sight of consideration of the factors that may increase or decrease Tariff amount of costs - CPR 77.07.

An abuseof the court process tends to dictate an increase in an otherwise proper costs award. Conclusion on Costs [65] This matter has a long history, beginning in September 1999, yet this action only commenced in April 2011. The Defendantsalmost all have counsel.

By the Plaintiff’s choosing to claim against the 25 remaining Defendants, she caused them (predictably) toretain the services of nine separate counsel. [66] There have been five court appearances: September 7, 2011 - (Motion for Case Management) December 22, 2011 - (Case Conference) April 23, 2012 - (Initially scheduled abuse of process Motion) June 13, 2012 - (Hearing to determine costs of the Plaintiff’s written request to adjourn the April 23 hearing - Costs were awarded on anincreased Tariff / “throw away” basis) June 27, 2012 - (The abuse of process hearing which took place between 9:30 a.m and 11:30 a.m.). [67] The Defendants have attempted to efficiently respond to the Plaintiff’s allegations by not each individually having separate /different counsel; by having Ms.

Murray act as their spokesperson and submit written arguments and evidence on their collective behalfs;and by reducing their varied complaints (res judiciata; limitation periods; non involvement of their clients / unsustainable pleadings;pleadings not in conformity with the Rules, etc.) to a general claim of an abuse of the court process by the Plaintiff.

[ 68 ] The Defendants have conducted themselves reasonably throughout - they have been patient, and “ followed the rules ” at every juncture. [ 69 ] The Platiniff is not a bona fide litigant, and her conduct and her pleadings reflect this. Much of the Defendants ’ costs are attributable solely and directly to the non compliance of the Plaintiff with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules , and the common courtesy of responding to communications from counsel and the Court. [ 70 ] I have already awarded costs for the April 23, 2011 adjournment.

The June 27 hearing ended the proceeding and as such would usually generate an award of [Tariff “ C ” - 2, 3, or 4 times multiplier applied] $1000 plus a multiplier of 2 or $2000 per Defendant ’ s counsel or 7 x $2000 (Ms. Murray also representing Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Rogers also representing Mr. LeDrew). [ 71 ] The Tariff “ C ” rates for attendance at the September 7, 2011, December 22, 2011 and June 13, 2012 hearings, would generate $750 on each occasion for each Defendants ’ counsel present or $2250 ($750 x 3) x 8 counsel; and (2 x $750) or $1500 for Mr.

Blaikie. [ 72 ] Collectively under the Tariffs therefore each counsel would receive for the court appearances: 1. Ms. Murray - $2250 + $2000 plus disbursements - $1179.97 + $106.26 2. Mr. Rogers - $2250 + $2000 3. Mr. MacInnes - $2250 +$2000 plus disbursements - $285.20 4. Mr. Beckett - $2250 + $2000 5. Mr. Hardy - $2250 + $2000 6. Mr. Burke - $2250 + $2000 7. Mr. LeDrew - $2250 8. Mr. Blaikie - $1500 9. Ms.

Gerrard - $2250 + $2000 [ 73 ] Examining the numerous affidavits on file, briefs and correspondence throughout; and bearing in mind the quantified costs of actual fees cited by counsel, and my estimation of the legal fees incurred by the counsel who did not quantify their actual fees; and in light of the needless expenses to which their clients have been put by the Plaintiff ’ s conduct, I will add the following amounts for the totals:

Ms. Murray - $3000 $8536.23 Mr. Rogers - $1000 $5250 Mr. MacInnes - $1000 $5535.20 Mr. Beckett - $1000 $5250 Mr. Hardy - $1000 $5250 Mr. Burke - $1000 $5250 Mr. LeDrew - $1000 $3250 Mr. Blaikie - $1000 $2500 Ms. Gerrard - $1000 $5250 [ 74 ] These are of course in addition to the costs award I set out in my Order arising from Ms. Bridges successful late hour request to adjourn the April 23 hearing. All these costs are payable forthwith. [ 75 ] So ordered. J.