2017 BCSC 1876 Singh v. Nielsen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:	Singh v. Nielsen,
	2017 BCSC 1876

Date: 20170915

Docket: S164639

Registry: Vancouver

Between:

Manoj Singh aka Mike Singh, Mohini Singh,
Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., Shawn Singh

Plaintiffs

And

Scott Nielsen, Chadwick Arthur Henry Born, Moses Kajoba

Defendants

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Choi

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In Chambers

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Manoj Singh, Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., and Shawn Singh:	C. Parfitt
Counsel for the Defendants Scott Nielsen and Chadwick Arthur Henry Born:	B. Parkin N. Bower G. Hoekstra
Place and Date of Trial/Hearing:	Vancouver, B.C. August 16-17, 2017
Place and Date of Judgment:	Vancouver, B.C. September 15, 2017

[1] THE COURT: The defendants, Scott Nielsen and Chadwick Born, seek the following specific orders:

(a) that no legal proceedings may be instituted in the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the Provincial Court of British Columbia by or on behalf of Manoj Singh or Mike Singh, Shawn Singh, Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., ESS Environmental Ltd., or any company or corporation controlled directly or indirectly by Manoj Singh or Shawn Singh, without leave of such court, except applications for leave to file applications or leave to commence new proceedings, which are not to exceed three pages in length and be accompanied by at most one affidavit, not to exceed five pages in length;

(b) that the staff of the registries of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Provincial Court of British Columbia are authorized to discard any document that is attempted to be filed in contravention of this order;

(c) that any legal proceeding filed in contravention of this order is a nullity and no party named as a defendant or a respondent need respond;

(d) that the Supreme Court registry of Vancouver shall advise all Supreme Court and Provincial Court registries within the Province of British Columbia of the terms of this order;

(e) that the approval of the plaintiffs, Manoj Singh aka Mike Singh, Mohini Singh, Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., Shawn Singh, and ESS Environmental Ltd. as to the form of order be dispensed with; and

(f) costs.

[2] Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443 states:

18. If, on application by any person, the court is satisfied that a person has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds, instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the Provincial Court against the same or different persons, the court may, after hearing that person or giving him or her an opportunity to be heard, order that a legal proceeding must not, without leave of the court, be instituted by that person in any court.

[3] The applicants must demonstrate that the proceedings brought by the plaintiffs: (1) are vexatious and that they are brought in the absence of objectively reasonable grounds; and (2) are habitual and persistent and have continued obstinately in the face of protest or criticism (Holland v. Marshall, 2010 BCSC 1560 at para. 7, leave to appeal ref’d 2010 BCCA 579).

[4] The courts are to consider the entire history of the matter. In R.D. Backhoe Services Inc. v. Graham Construction and Engineering Inc., 2017 BCCA 91 at para. 29, the Court of Appeal set out a number of considerations the court may take into account. The hallmarks of vexatious conduct by litigants include:

(a) bringing an action to determine an issue that has already been determined;

(b) bringing an action that obviously cannot succeed or would lead to no possible good, or from which no reasonable person could reasonably expect to obtain relief;

(d) rolling forward grounds and issues into subsequent actions, often with actions brought against lawyers who have previously acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;

(e) failing to pay costs of unsuccessful proceedings; and

(f) taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions.

[5] Making a claim that the court has repeatedly stated cannot be advanced is also a sign of a vexatious litigant (Sterritt v. Canada, 2017 BCSC 1064 at para. 26).

[6] The parties agree on the legal principles that apply. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of some of the facts.

[7] The plaintiffs' history of litigation since 2013 involves over a dozen proceedings against the Workers' Compensation Board, its directors, officers, or employees in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the Provincial Court, this Court, and in the Court of Appeal. They are as follows:

(a) two claims in the Provincial Court of British Columbia;

(b) five civil claims in the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

(d) an appeal from an interim order in one civil claim;

(e) one complaint at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal;

(f) judicial review of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision;

(g) an appeal from that judicial review decision; and

(h) two judicial reviews of Board decisions.

[8] Some of the decisions are indexed as: Singh and another v. Workers' Compensation Board of B.C. and others, 2014 BCHRT 259; Singh v. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (29 January 2016), Vancouver S150011 (B.C.S.C.); Workers' Compensation Board v. Skylite Building Maintenance Ltd., 2016 BCSC 394; Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, 2016 BCSC 557; Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. v. Pacific Sun Newspaper Group (22 July 2016), Vancouver S144721 (B.C.S.C.); Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. v. Pacific Sun Newspaper Group (5 August 2016), Vancouver S144721 (B.C.S.C.); Singh v. British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board (1 November 2016), Vancouver S163313 (B.C.S.C.); Singh v. Nielsen, 2016 BCSC 2331; Singh v. Nielsen, 2016 BCSC 2420; Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia v. Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., 2017 BCCA 19; Singh v. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 138; Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (8 February 2017), Vancouver CA43844 (B.C.C.A.); and, Seattle Environmental Consulting v. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (21 July 2017), Vancouver CA43844 (B.C.C.A.).

[9] None of those proceedings concluded in favour of the plaintiffs.

[10] The plaintiffs argue against the vexatious litigant declaration. Alternatively, they argue that leave only be required for new actions that are not an appeal or a judicial review. I find that much of the plaintiffs' arguments in this application mirrored other arguments made in other proceedings, which were not accepted by other judges.

[11] The applicants argue that Justices Macintosh, Verhoeven, and Kent have already characterized these litigants as vexatious in some of the above-noted decisions. I agree with the applicants; the plaintiffs have met all the characteristics of a vexatious litigant described in R.D. Backhoe Services Inc.

[12] Accordingly, I make the following orders sought by the applicants:

1. No legal proceedings may be instituted in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of Manoj Singh or Mike Singh, Shawn Singh, Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., ESS Environmental Ltd., or any company or corporation controlled directly or indirectly by Manoj Singh or Shawn Singh, without leave of such court, except applications for leave to file applications or leave to commence new proceedings.

2. Any legal proceeding filed in contravention of this order is a nullity and no party named as a defendant or a respondent need respond.

3. The signature of the plaintiffs as to the form of order is dispensed with.

4. Costs at Scale B.

[13] I dismiss the applications set out in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the notice of application, and with respect to paragraph 1, I have not ordered the page restrictions on the leave application or that only one affidavit may be filed of five pages, nor have I made any orders that affect the Provincial Court.

“Choi J.”