Watson v. Strong

2018 BCSC 692 Watson v. Strong IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Watson v. Strong, 2018 BCSC 692 Date: 20180430 Docket: S140554 Registry: Vancouver Between: William Frederick Watson Petitioner And Marian G. Strong and Gordon Watson Respondents - and - Docket: S163410 Registry: Victoria Between: Gordon Stephen Watson Plaintiff And William Frederick Watson in his personal capacity William Frederick Watson in his capacity as he purported to be the executor of the Estate of Rosamund Margarete Watson Defendants Corrected Judgment: The text of the judgment was corrected on the second page and at paragraph 96 on May 4, 2018 Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Petitioner/Defendants in Victoria Proceeding: D. Georgetti The Respondents, Marian G. Strong: Gordon Watson Self-represented Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. February 14-16, March 28-29, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. April 30, 2018 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION. 4 II. BACKGROUND. 5 III. DISCUSSION. 9 A. The Relief Sought by Rick against Gordon. 9 B. The Relief sought by Marian against Rick. 22 IV. CONCLUSIONS. 31 I. INTRODUCTION [1] Rosamund Margarete Watson died on February 28, 2010, leaving four adult children: Gordon Stephen Watson, Theresa Elizabeth Anne Watson (known as Terri), William Frederick Watson (known as Rick), and Marian Grace Strong. Meaning no disrespect, since most of the family members have the same last name I will at times refer to them by their first names. [2] Rosamund made her last will and testament on April 25, 2004, naming Terri, Rick, Marian, and Aaron Watson (Gordon's son) as co-executors. She did not name Gordon as an executor. The beneficiaries of the estate were Rick, Terri, Marian and Aaron. Terri renounced as executor on November 11, 2010, and Aaron renounced on March 2, 2013. Marian was removed as executor and Rick was designated the sole executor by the court order made September 25, 2013. [3] As will be outlined below, the Vancouver proceeding relates to the administration of the estate and has been the subject of many applications which I have heard over time dating back to 2014. [4] On June 9, 2016, Gordon commenced an action against Rick, both in his capacity as executor of the estate and in his personal capacity, out of this Court's Victoria registry, being action # S140554 (the "Victoria action"). [5] The applications which are before the court at this time in the Vancouver proceeding include Rick seeking directions regarding the winding up of the estate, and having Gordon held in contempt of court for not complying with a document disclosure order and for his conduct at an examination in aid of execution. He also seeks to have Gordon declared a vexatious litigant. On the last day of the hearing, Rick's counsel advised the court that, in light of other submissions which had been made and which I shall detail below, his client was not pressing a finding of contempt against Gordon at this time and was prepared to have the claim for that relief adjourned on certain terms. [6] Marian, for her part, also seeks orders regarding the administration of the estate and certain outstanding costs and documentary production matters. She also seeks an order, essentially three and a half years after the fact, declaring "null and void" an order made in August 2014 approving the sale of the estate's principal asset, being the deceased's home, that completed on September 30, 2014. [7] In the Victoria action, Rick seeks an order striking the proceeding on the basis that the amended notice of civil claim (the "Amended NOCC") is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and/or is bound to fail. In the alternative, he seeks security for costs. Gordon's cross application seeks the opportunity to file a further Amended NOCC. [8] For the reasons that follow, the relief: (a) sought by Rick is, for the most part, granted; (b) sought by Marian is, for the most part, dismissed; and (c) sought by Gordon is dismissed. II. BACKGROUND [9] In reasons for judgment indexed at 2014 BCSC 754 (the "2014 Reasons"), I summarized the principal background facts in this highly contentious estate matter which pits Rick and Theresa on the one hand against Gordon--often, but not always, supported by Marian--on the other. [10] Since 2014, I have heard various applications in the Vancouver proceedings including: (a) unsuccessful attempts by Marian and Gordon to have the petitioner removed as trustee of the estate; (b) Marian's removal as co-executrix; (c) unsuccessful attempts by Gordon to have Rick held in contempt of court; (d) various applications by Rick for directions pertaining to the administration and winding up of the estate; (e) for the estate to have vacant possession of its principal asset, being the deceased's residence located on Elwell Street in Burnaby, B.C. (the "Property"); (f) the sale of the Property, which I ordered be sold on August 15, 2014. On August 22, 2014, I ordered that certain certificates of pending litigation be discharged from the Property. The transaction ultimately closed on September 30, 2014; (g) an award of special costs against both Marian and Gordon; and (h) the passing of the executors' accounts. [11] In the 2014 Reasons, I noted at para. 29: [29] It is clear from the many affidavits before the Court on these applications and the submissions of the parties that the relationship between the petitioner and his sister Theresa Watson on one hand, and the respondents [i.e., Marian and Gordon] on the other, is toxic. This has been the case for many years. No useful purpose would be served by setting out in any further detail the history and particulars of the acrimony. [12] At various times, Gordon took the position that his son Aaron's share of the estate was held in trust for him. According to Gordon, since he was a political activist who had advanced various contentious causes over the years, he had persuaded his mother to put his share of the estate into his son Aaron's name. Accordingly this allegation provided him with the status to call into question many of his brother Rick's actions as executor. [13] In oral reasons for judgment indexed at 2016 BCSC 988 and dated May 13, 2016 (the "May 2016 Reasons"), I concluded, inter alia, that Gordon had effectively abandoned any claim which he advanced to an interest in the estate. I also ordered that he was not entitled to notice of any further applications in the Vancouver proceeding, including the passing of the petitioner's accounts. [14] Gordon appealed the orders made in those reasons for judgment. He also, unbeknownst to Rick, commenced the Victoria action on June 9, 2016, having relocated to that city after he was ordered to vacate the Property in 2014. [15] I say "unbeknownst" since the notice of civil claim (the "NOCC") was amended on August 1, 2017, and it was only when served with the Amended NOCC that Rick became aware of the Victoria action. [16] In both the NOCC and the Amended NOCC, Gordon advances claims in which he makes the most egregious allegations against Rick and others, including Rick's former legal counsel, which are largely based on his alleged status as a beneficiary to the estate. [17] In August and September 2016, Master Harper, as Registrar, presided over a four-and-a-half day hearing which dealt with the following issues: (a) the passing of Rick's accounts; (b) determining Marian's claim for executor's remuneration up to the point she was removed as executor by court order; (c) fixing the executor's remuneration for Rick; and (d) reviewing the legal accounts of the solicitors retained by Rick. [18] In her Reasons for Decision indexed at 2016 BCSC 1897 (the "Decision"), Master Harper: (a) certified the passing of Rick's accounts for the period February 28, 2010, to May 30, 2016; (b) awarded Rick interim executor's remuneration of a capital fee of 4.5% of the gross aggregate value of the estate being $1,025,000 (that is the amount for which the Property was sold in August 2014); (c) decided that Marian was not entitled to any executor's remuneration; (d) allowed the legal accounts as presented; (e) decided that Rick was entitled to his costs of the hearing as special costs from the estate; and (f) seized herself in the event a hearing was required with respect to the final passing of accounts and the amount of Rick's final remuneration as executor. [19] In the Decision, Master Harper noted: [5] The estate consisted only of one significant asset: the family home located at 7954 Elwell Street, Burnaby, B.C. [6] Gordon lived at Elwell Street with his mother for many years and continued to live there after she died. Eventually, Elwell Street was sold pursuant to court order on September 30, 2014 for $1,025,000. The administration of the estate is almost complete, subject to final tax filings and obtaining a Canada Revenue Agency clearance certificate. These final steps are to be taken after the court determines the outstanding obligations of the estate. The wind-up is to be completed by December 31, 2016 pursuant to court order. Unfortunately, complicating the wind-up of the estate is an appeal filed by Gordon of one of the court orders, which I will describe more fully below. [7] This Registrar's hearing occupied four and a half days. There was oral and affidavit evidence presented by Rick, Terri, Marian and Gordon, as well as by the estate solicitor, Michael Geldert. The relationships amongst the Watson siblings are strained. Aaron did not give evidence. He wants nothing to do with the dispute. [8] Although the conflict amongst the siblings about what to do about Elwell Street has given rise to these proceedings, the strained relationships date back many years. Gordon sent an email to Rick dated October 17, 2009 (before Rosamunde died) in the context of a particular dispute saying: how would you like to have everything you own liened-up as the matter grinds along in Court, for years, while I proceed as an indigent. [9] Even though Gordon is neither an executor nor a beneficiary, he has made the administration of the estate more difficult than it needs to be. His conduct since Rosamund's death is consistent with the threat contained in the email just quoted. [10] Before one of the many previous hearings, Aaron wrote a statement that he wished to be presented to the court. The note is illuminating and, in my view, an accurate depiction of the family dynamics. In referring to his decision to renounce as executor and remove himself as much as possible from the proceedings Aaron writes: I realized that old family grudges were being brought up and that the matter of settling the estate had become secondary to trying to resolve these ancient family fights in the entirely inappropriate arena of the courts. [11] There is little use in going into detail as to the causes of the acrimony. Each family member has his or her strongly-held views. The acrimony is important to understand only in that it has had a significant impact on the administration of the estate, resulting in unnecessary delay and complications. [20] Marian did not appeal the Decision. [21] Gordon's appeal was heard on September 20, 2017, and was dismissed that day with reasons for judgment indexed at 2017 BCCA 331. The Court of Appeal, in particular, dismissed the appeal from the order which had dismissed Gordon's application for a declaration that he was a beneficiary of the estate. III. DISCUSSION A. The Relief Sought by Rick against Gordon [22] Since there is considerable overlap between the relief sought by Rick against Gordon in both the Vancouver proceeding and the Victoria action, I will consider them essentially together. [23] Before doing so I must deal with an issue that arose, being whether I should hear the applications in the Victoria action. That is because, in Gordon's response to Rick's application to have the Victoria Action dismissed, he made allegations regarding my conduct on prior applications, including that I "made up excuses for that [i.e., Rick's and his former counsel's] criminality, that I "perverted Justice to cover [my] own blunders", and that I became an accessory after the fact to indictable offences committed by [Rick] in relation to a conspiracy to "rig the bidding on the property so as to accomplish Fraudulent Title to real estate". [24] This was not the first time my impartiality and alleged conduct had been called into question by Gordon. This first occurred prior to the hearing of applications in March 2014 with the allegations then withdrawn at the hearing: see 2014 BCSC 754 at paras. 9-10. [25] Gordon did not make any such allegations in his response to the relief sought by Rick in the Vancouver proceedings, including that he be held in contempt of court and declared a vexatious litigant. In fact, his position was that it was entirely appropriate that I hear those applications, and that is what first proceeded before me in February 2018. During the course of that week, Gordon indicated to the court that he had given the matter some further thought, that he had "great respect" for me personally and the court, and that he consented to having both Rick's and his own application in the Victoria action heard by me. At the time, I indicated to the parties that while I was assisted by Gordon's comments and consent, I would also consider the issue within the parameters of the applicable principles relating to recusal which are set out, inter alia, in R. v. Gaudaur, 2007 BCSC 434. Having done so, I concluded that I should not recuse myself from hearing the Victoria action applications, which were then heard on March 29 and 30, 2018. [26] I will now turn to the substantive issues. [27] Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act provides: Vexatious proceedings 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. [28] In Hokhold v. Gerbrandt, 2017 BCSC 1249, the legal framework was summarized as follows: [19] In considering whether a litigant is vexatious or an appeal is vexatious, the court will look to the whole history of the matter, with the ultimate question being, as stated by Justice Donald in Lindsay v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 BCCA 594 [Lindsay] at paragraph 26, whether "the litigant has taken himself over the line". [20] In Carten v. Carten, 2015 BCCA 201, Justice Bennett referred to Lindsay in enumerating certain of the key principles which can be considered on an application for a vexatious litigant order: [32] In Lindsay v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 BCCA 594, Donald J.A. cited at para. 25 the following non-exhaustive list of principles that may be considered on an application for a vexatious litigant order: (a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding; (b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious; (c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; (d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings; (e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action; (f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious. (g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals form judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings. See also Dawson v. Dawson, 2014 BCSC 44 at paras. 15ff. [Dawson] [21] In the CA-VLA reasons, Justice Newbury noted: [21] An order under s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act is obviously not one that should be made lightly. Such an order is an "extraordinary remedy that alters a person's right to access the courts": Kallaba v. Bylykbashi (2006) 207 O.A.C. 60, lve. to app. dism'd [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 144, at para. 31. In Nayyar v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company 2016 BCSC 1587, Mr. Justice Voith observed that: An order declaring that an individual is a vexatious litigant is a serious matter. It is not an order that is lightly made. At the same time, that order is, in certain circumstances, in the public interest and necessary to prevent ongoing abuse of the court's process. [At para. 78.] [Emphasis added.] [29] Rick seeks a declaration that Gordon is a vexatious litigant, in part, on the basis of what he terms a "long history, spanning decades of pernicious litigation". And yet the real basis for the relief sought is an attempt to protect Rick and the estate from further proceedings brought by Gordon in relation to various estate matters. [30] Rick submits that the only impediment to the estate being wound up and the final passing of accounts are the delays caused by Gordon's conduct, which includes pursuing his appeal and commencing the Victoria action. In his counsel's words, "to get to the finishing line we need the Victoria action dismissed and no further proceedings brought against the estate". [31] The Victoria action advances various heads of relief, all of which are related to the estate and its administration, including: (a) unspecified damages against the defendants for "distress" and "alienation of affection", among other things (para. 42); (b) an order requiring the Land Title Office to "revoke" the transfer of the Property ordered by Abrioux J. in the estate litigation as a result of "criminal conspiracy" and "fraudulent conversion" allegedly perpetrated by the defendants (para. 43); (c) damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 to be paid into the estate by the defendants and Michael Geldert (as an "accomplice") jointly and severally for "criminal conspiracy to perpetrate Fraud upon the court" and "deliberately misusing the powers and resources at the disposal of the office of Executor" allegedly perpetrated by the defendants (para. 44); (d) unspecified damages in favour of the estate for "funds of the Estate which were wasted by William F. Watson, as he fomented litigation motivated by his own mendacity" (para. 45); (e) an order that the Canada Revenue Agency perform a "full accounting" of the estate as a result of conspiracy to "commit tax evasion" allegedly perpetrated by the defendants (para. 46); (f) unspecified damages apparently relating to wrongfully retaining Michael Geldert as counsel (para. 47); (g) "exemplary" damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 payable to the plaintiff and Marian Strong, the plaintiff's sister (a non-party to this proceeding) for "squandering" Estate assets (para. 48); (h) damages against the defendants for allegedly "mis-managing" the office of executor of the estate and in particular failing to obtain the best price for the Property (para. 49); (i) unspecified damages against the defendants for alleged contravention of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, "criminal conspiracy" and "criminal negligence" among other things respecting the "rigged" sale of the Property to the purchaser, 0831167 BC Ltd. (para. 50); (j) punitive damages against the defendant and Michael Geldert for "obstruction of justice" (paras. 51-52); (k) punitive damages against Michael Geldert for "obstruction of justice" on account of "perjury" (paras. 53-55); (l) damages against the defendants for criminal mail theft (s. 356 of the Criminal Code) payable "in the form of a gold Maple Leaf coin uttered by the Royal Mint" (para. 56); (m)punitive damages against the defendant and Michael Geldert (as an "accomplice") for "extortion" (para. 57); and (n) damages for "tortious interference" against the defendants for allegedly requesting that certain utility providers cease service to the Property which was "a place in which I was then living, with winter coming on, which was an attempt to deny me the necessities of life" (paras. 58-59). [32] Rick's position is that these claims, which relate in part to the alleged conduct of his former counsel, are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and also amount to an abuse of the court's process. He points to the unsuccessful allegations made by Gordon in the Vancouver proceeding, including his attempts to have Rick removed as executor and the award of special costs made against him in this proceeding. He also argues that the claims in the Amended NOCC include non parties, and attempt to re-litigate matters already decided in the Vancouver proceeding and which Gordon unsuccessfully appealed, including that he was not a beneficiary of the estate. [33] Gordon, for his part, acknowledges that the Amended NOCC was filed before the appeal was heard in September 2017 and that, as currently pleaded, it cannot stand since it is essentially predicated on his being found to be a beneficiary of the estate. [34] His focus in his submissions was to be provided the opportunity to file a Further Amended NOCC. For that he will need leave of the court since he filed the Amended NOCC without leave as he was entitled to do pursuant to the Supreme Court Civil Rules. [35] He argued that not all of his claims in the Victoria action necessarily relate to Rick's actions qua executor. He stated in his submissions that he intends to have the action proceed before a jury and that he will have the proof that there has been a fraud perpetrated on the court and the beneficiaries by Rick, his former counsel, and perhaps the real estate agent involved in the sale of the Property. [36] In part, Gordon alleges that he will garner the required evidence to prove to a jury that the Property was purchased by individuals involved in organized crime who used funds laundered through B.C. casinos. There was not a shred of evidence before the court on these applications in that regard, nor is that pleaded in the Amended NOCC. [37] Gordon also supports Marian's submissions that Theresa was not entitled to accept the offer for the sale of the Property since she did so pursuant to a power of attorney granted to her by Rick, who was apparently out of the country during August 2014. I shall consider that submission below within the context of Marian's application. [38] In any event, Gordon wishes to have the opportunity to put the basis of his claims in the form of a proposed amended pleading. He also made it clear that, if he is not successful, he intends to appeal. [39] In I.J. v. J.A.M., 2014 BCSC 89, Justice Burnyeat, at paras. 63-69, summarized the legal framework in a way which, in my view, is entirely applicable to the circumstances of the Victoria action: (h) Are the pleadings frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process? [63] Pursuant to Rule 9‑5(1)(b) and/or 9‑5(1)(d), the Court has a discretion to disallow a claim in situations where the continuance of the claim would violate principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice: Drover v. BCE Inc., [2013] B.C.J. No. 1643 (S.C.) at para. 20. It is also the case that, where pleadings are "so prolix and confusing" that it makes it difficult or impossible for a party to understand the case to be met, the pleadings may also be struck out as an abuse of process: Gateway Building Management Ltd. v. Randhawa, [2013] B.C.J. No. 410 (S.C.). [64] The pleadings of the Plaintiff are poorly drafted, unnecessarily long, confusing, and highly repetitive. The Notice of Civil Claim is 55 pages long and contains 187 paragraphs as well as a preamble. The Amended Notice of Civil Claim is 15 pages long and contains 109 paragraphs as well as a preamble. Both documents contain much extraneous and irrelevant information, including scandalous allegations made in respect of non-parties. [65] The Plaintiff has not organized her claims or her description of the events giving rise to the claims in way that can be followed easily or at all. Unlike Rule 9‑1(5)(a), the Court may consider additional evidence under Rules 9‑5(1)(b) and 9‑5(1)(d). Accordingly, my review of the Particulars provided by the Plaintiff also allows me to draw the conclusion that the same are poorly drafted and the document is confusing, repetitive, lacks in coherence and contains conflicting and scandalous allegations. [66] But for the conclusions that I have drawn relating to the pleadings set out in the Claim, I would have exercised the discretion available to me to strike out the Claim as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. (i) Should leave to amend to be granted? [67] An Order has already been made and what is being reviewed in these Reasons for Judgment relates to the Amended Notice of Civil Claim. It is plain and obvious that the deficiencies in the Claim relating to DC cannot be cured by amendment. A plaintiff should not be allowed to amend a defective pleading if it is plain and obvious that any redrafted pleadings are bound to fail for want of a legal foundation: LMS 3259 v. Sze Hang Holdings Inc., [2009] B.C.J. No. 694 (S.C.) at paras. 56‑57. Failure to in any way provide a legal basis for the claims of the Plaintiff indicates that the pleadings are unlikely to be cured by redrafting. [68] It would violate the principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice to allow the Plaintiff to further amend her Amended Notice of Civil Claim. In this regard, see Gondal v. Eagle Plains Resources Ltd., [2011] B.C.J. No. 1444 (S.C.) at paras. 32-33. [69] I have concluded that further amendments of the Amended Notice of Civil Claim are unlikely to "cure" any "claims" of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has already been given one opportunity to remedy the defects in her pleading and to articulate legally viable bases for her claims against DC. Under the circumstances, the Plaintiff ought not to be given a further opportunity to do so. [40] I conclude that the Amended NOCC offends virtually every principle which applies to a proper pleading. A non-exhaustive list includes: (a) it is predicated on Gordon being a beneficiary, but he is not; (b) it is essentially a personal attack against Rick and others who have been involved in the administration of the estate; (c) it advances claims which are unknown at law; and (d) it attempts to re litigate issues which have already been decided both in this Court and the Court of Appeal. [41] In my view, the Victoria action should be dismissed not only pursuant to R. 9-5(1)(b) and (d), but also (a) in that it discloses no reasonable claim and is bound to fail. [42] Rick's application in the Victoria action to have the claim dismissed was filed on December 22, 2017, and Gordon has chosen not to place a draft of a proposed further amended NOCC before the court. If there are, in fact, "legally viable bases" for his claims against Rick which he believes can be brought by a non-beneficiary, then they should have been before the court on this application in the form of a proposed Further Amended NOCC. [43] As was the case in I.J., I am of the view that there is no basis for providing Gordon with the opportunity to articulate his claims against Rick and perhaps others. [44] Accordingly, the Victoria Action is dismissed with costs to Rick. It follows that Gordon's application for leave to file a Further Amended NOCC is dismissed. [45] Rather than have the costs of those applications assessed which will involve time and additional expense to Rick and thus the estate, I assess lump sum party and party costs, including disbursements and taxes at $1,500 (the "Victoria action costs"). [46] This then leads to whether I should declare Gordon to be a vexatious litigant. [47] I do not consider Gordon's lengthy history as a political activist, including the various unpaid costs orders which have been made against him in unrelated proceedings, to be relevant in determining this issue. Rather, the real question is whether Gordon's conduct "in this matter", that is the administration of the estate and the other factors to which I have referred, should result in an order that he must not commence another legal proceeding in relation to the administration of the estate against Rick or others without leave of the court. [48] It is an understatement to say that the Vancouver proceeding has gone on for far too long. At the time of Master Harper's Decision in the fall of 2016, little remained to be completed. And she noted at paras. 8-9 of her Decision: [8] Although the conflict amongst the siblings about what to do about Elwell Street has given rise to these proceedings, the strained relationships date back many years. Gordon sent an email to Rick dated October 17, 2009 (before Rosamunde died) in the context of a particular dispute saying: how would you like to have everything you own liened-up as the matter grinds along in Court, for years, while I proceed as an indigent. [9] Even though Gordon is neither an executor nor a beneficiary, he has made the administration of the estate more difficult than it needs to be. His conduct since Rosamund's death is consistent with the threat contained in the email just quoted. [49] Based on my involvement in the Vancouver proceeding for several years and having now heard the application to strike the Victoria action, I agree with that observation. Gordon has attempted at virtually every turn to delay and hinder Rick's administration of the estate. In the face of the barrage of Gordon's accusations, I stated at para. 57 of the 2014 Reasons: [57] On the evidence before me, I also conclude that the petitioner has acted entirely appropriately in his attempts to administer the Estate. There is no legal basis for his removal as executor. [50] I remain of that view, but acknowledge that there may be an issue regarding the time frame that the sale proceeds of the Property were not placed in an interest bearing account. That is a matter Master Harper may have to consider at the time of the final passing of accounts and when Rick's final remuneration as executor is determined. [51] Accordingly, I conclude that Gordon's conduct in the Vancouver proceeding and the commencement of the Victoria action should, with one exception, result in the relief sought by Rick. [52] I would add that had I not dismissed the Victoria action Gordon would still require leave of the court to further amend the Amended NOCC. [53] So the end result is essentially the same, and I conclude that certain orders should be made either pursuant to s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act or the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its own process. In making these orders, I do not consider a declaration that Gordon is a vexatious litigant to be necessary, although I acknowledge that it is usually made in the context of this type of application. [54] Section 18 of the Supreme Court Act does not require such a declaration prior to the granting of the substantive remedy set out in that section. In fact the term "declaration" is not mentioned. In light of Gordon's history of social and political activism, such a declaration could perhaps be considered by some to be a barrier or a factor to limit Gordon's legitimate rights to advocate in a legally acceptable manner for causes he wishes to advance. Accordingly, I decline to make it. [55] But, a definitive time frame is required for an expeditious conclusion of this matter which has been outstanding for far too long. [56] The orders will be as follows: (a) the respondent, Gordon Watson, is hereby restrained and enjoined from instituting any legal proceeding in this Court against the petitioner William Frederick Watson (Rick Watson), Theresa Watson, the estate, the petitioner's current or former counsel, and any parties, including real estate agents involved in the sale of the Property without leave of the court (the "leave application"); (b) prior to bringing the leave application, Gordon Watson is to pay Rick Watson the outstanding amount of the special costs ordered on May 13, 2016, being $7,500 and the Victoria action costs of $1,500; (c) if the leave application is brought: (i) it is to be filed by June 2, 2018, in the Vancouver registry of this Court and include a draft of the proposed pleading which is to comply with the Supreme Court Civil Rules; (ii) it is to be served on Rick Watson or his counsel by June 9, 2018; (iii) it is to be heard by July 15, 2018, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the court; and (iv) Abrioux J. is seized of the leave application. [57] These orders have as their objective fairness to Rick, the beneficiaries, Gordon, and the interests of justice such that the estate reach "the finishing line" as soon as possible. [58] There will also be an order that the estate be wound up within 120 days of the date of these reasons for judgment or the completion of appeals from the orders herein, or the leave application. [59] In so far as the contempt application is concerned, Gordon acknowledges that he has not complied with the document production order made by Master Harper in December 2017 and he is prepared to produce the documents as I shall set out below. There is also an issue as to whether his conduct at an examination in aid of execution could form the basis of a finding of contempt since it was set in Vancouver with Gordon appearing by phone from Victoria, even though he had accepted the conduct money provided by Rick requiring his attendance in Vancouver. The appointment was not in compliance with the Rules in that the examination should have been set down within 20 kilometers of the Victoria registry of this Court since Gordon resides in that city. [60] Having reviewed the transcript of the examination in aid, I have no difficulty in concluding that Gordon's conduct was egregious; this included offensive statements to counsel and Rick. [61] In my view the most practical way to deal with the matters arising out of the contempt application is for me to make the following orders: (a) the petitioner shall be entitled to serve a further appointment to examine the respondent, Gordon Watson in aid of execution, and: (i) the requirement to provide Gordon Watson, with conduct money is dispensed with; (ii) Gordon Watson shall attend in person at the time and place set out in the appointment, the examination to take place in Vancouver, B.C.; and (iii) Gordon Watson shall inform himself ahead of the examination of his financial circumstances and answer all question put to him in respect of the matters set out in Rule 13-4 (2); (b) by consent, within seven (7) days after the date of these reasons, Gordon Watson shall: (i) fully comply with the document disclosure obligations set out in the order of Master Harper dated December 22, 2017; and (ii) respond to the outstanding requests made at the examination in aid, including providing to the petitioner the following documents and information and all source documents in his possession, custody or control, required to produce a 2015 tax return: · the name and contact information of the person who produced his T1 General tax return for 2016; · all source documents in his possession, custody or control, which were used to produce his T1 General tax return for 2016; · the names of employers and list all of the sources of his income or revenue for 2016; · un-redacted copies of all of his bank account statements for 2017; · all documents evidencing payments made to him by Sidney Taxi for 2017; · a copy of the rental, lease or other agreement between him and the person or entity which owns the property he resides in; and · how the payment was made to the Court of Appeal in respect of the security for costs ordered on or about March 15, 2017 and provide any documents related to that payment; (c) by consent, Gordon Watson shall not redact any document he is required to provide; and (d) by consent, if not currently in his possession, Gordon shall make all necessary inquiries and use his best efforts to obtain any document or information he is required to provide. [62] I also order that: (a) the petitioner shall not be required to give notice to the respondent Marian Strong of enforcement proceedings against Gordon Watson; and (b) by consent, the petitioner may serve any document, including a further application for a finding of contempt of court on Gordon Watson at his residence fax being (250) 654-0423 on any Tuesday or Thursday between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. and Gordon Watson shall keep his residence fax line in operation during those hours. [63] Rick seeks special costs against Gordon in the amount of $7,500 in relation to the applications in the Vancouver proceedings. If, having reviewed these reasons and the time lines I have ordered to facilitate the orderly wind up of the estate, he wishes to pursue that remedy, he has leave to do so. B. The Relief sought by Marian against Rick [64] Marian seeks several orders, including that: (a) the estate provide "an accurate accounting"; (b) the court enforce prior orders made regarding production of the estate's bank accounts; (c) for the court "after considering my concerns, to rule on the Recommendations/suggestions of Master Harper on the Interim Passing of Accounts, including the Former and Current Executors Remuneration " (d) for Fortis BC to produce all customer records etc. relating to her and Gordon Watson's occupancy of the Property; (e) payment of costs ordered in accordance with the May 2016 Reasons; and (f) "[d]eclare null and void the document signed by Theresa Watson titled "Offer to Purchase and Sale" dated August 15, 2014, and thereby overturn the "sale" of the Estate property to the Company #0831167 and return ownership to the Estate. To find the Executor personally responsible for any and all costs and differences this may cause the Estate. " [65] I will first deal with (a), (b) and (c) since they are somewhat interrelated. [66] As I have noted there was a four-and-a-half day hearing before Master Harper in the late summer and fall of 2016 which resulted in the Decision. [67] Marian's attempts to have the court in 2018 revisit and rule on the "Recommendation/suggestions" of Master Harper is misconceived and without merit. That is because Master Harper did not make "recommendations/suggestions", but rather issued what I consider to be a reasoned decision following a lengthy hearing. [68] In addition to what I have noted above, the Decision includes references to the following: (a) Marian provided a list of 70 separate objections to the accounts; (b) Marian did identify a few errors; otherwise, "her objections are unfounded or petty"; (c) the services provided by [former counsel] had been reviewed "and [I] am satisfied that all the work done was for the benefit of the estate"; (d) Marian's claim to executor's remuneration until her removal in May 2014 was dismissed "since she had not applied any skill or ability as executor to justify executor's remuneration". In fact, "she is a major cause in the delay in getting [the Property] sold and the associated legal expenses"; (e) on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, "Rick has continued to act entirely appropriately in his attempts to administer the estate"; (f) "the excessive delay, the protracted court proceedings and Rick's performance overall as executor justify an interim fee of 4.5% with the expectation that if Rick continues as he has been as executor, the remaining 0.5% will be awarded when the estate is wound up and the final passing of accounts occurs"; and (g) Rick is entitled to his costs of the hearing paid as special costs from the estate. [69] Rules 23-6(8) and (9) provide: Appeal from master, registrar or special referee (8) A person affected by an order or decision of a master, registrar or special referee may appeal the order or the decision to the court. Form of appeal (9) The appeal must be made by filing a notice of appeal in Form 121 within 14 days after the order or decision complained of. [70] No appeal was taken by Marian and the time to do so is long past. To the extent she was not satisfied in the accuracy of the accounting prior to the hearing before Master Harper, those concerns should have been raised then (and it appears they were), and if not properly dealt with, in Marian's opinion, should have formed the basis of an appeal of the Decision. If there are ongoing concerns, they should be raised at the final passing of accounts. [71] The relief which Marian seeks regarding the production of estate bank accounts arises out of an order I made on July 19, 2016, primarily in relation to a claim by Marian that the sale proceeds of the Property had not been placed in an interest bearing trust account for the entire period after they were received by Rick or his former counsel. Registrar Nielsen made a similar order at a pre-hearing conference on August 5, 2016, that is prior to the hearing before Master Harper which commenced later that month. [72] At this hearing, there was evidence, which I accept, that there were no estate bank records per se. Rather, the funds were placed in former counsel's trust account. Needless to say, it would have been preferable for former counsel to have raised this issue in 2016 prior to the order being made. Be that as it may, a copy of former counsel's trust ledger was provided to Marian which provides details as to the credits and debits of the estate funds. It would be an unnecessary, time consuming, and unjustified expense to the estate to have former counsel review and make the necessary redaction to his pooled trust account statements such that transactions involving other clients were redacted in order to provide the level of detail which Marian seeks to obtain. Accordingly, this relief is denied. [73] I will now turn to (f), which occupied a considerable portion of Marian's submissions. It was also relied on by Gordon in relation to a portion of the relief sought by him in the Victoria action, including relief pursuant to the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 163. For the sake of convenience, I will repeat what is sought: (f) [d]eclare null and void the document signed by Theresa Watson titled 'Offer to Purchase and Sale' dated August 15, 2014 and thereby overturn the 'sale' of the Estate property to the Company #0831167 and return ownership to the Estate. To find the Executor personally responsible for any and all costs and differences this may cause the Estate. [74] In my view, this claim exemplifies the attempts by Gordon and Marian over time to impede and disrupt the orderly administration of the estate. [75] Simply put, Marian (and Gordon) argue that the court was deceived by Rick and Theresa's misleading and, at least according to Gordon, fraudulent conduct in August 2014 when the Property was ordered sold. [76] Marian says that it was only well after the completion of the sale of the Property that she and the court became aware that the purchaser's offer had been accepted by Theresa on behalf of the estate pursuant to a power of attorney granted to her by Rick on August 5, 2014. [77] The evidence is to the effect that Rick was out of the country at the time the real estate agent received an offer from a numbered company 0831167 B.C. Ltd. (the "numbered company"). On August 15, 2016, I approved that offer which was in the amount of $1,025,000. On August 22, 2016, I ordered that certificates of pending litigation be removed. Marion was present at the hearing of both applications. She did raise concerns regarding the bidding process, but I approved the sale. In doing so, I noted that I had provided Marian the opportunity to place an offer before the court to purchase the Property in the past but this had not occurred. [78] No appeal was taken or stay sought of the orders of either August 15 or August 22, 2014, and the transaction proceeded to completion on September 30, 2014. By this time Rick had returned to British Columbia and he signed the closing documents on behalf of the estate which included the Form A transfer. [79] Marian argues that although the Form A was properly signed by Rick, the underlying transaction is void since the offer could not be accepted by Theresa on behalf of the estate. She advances what I can only consider to be an astonishing argument that, although the sale proceeds were received by the estate and the beneficiaries, which include her, each have received a portion of those funds that is $50,000 by way of interim distribution, the transaction should be set aside and the sale reversed. According to her, she should keep the interim distribution, and repayment of the sale proceeds to the purchaser being a numbered company (assuming it would accept a reversal of the transaction the better part of four years later) should be Rick's responsibility. [80] Marian relies on s. 55 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 163, which provides: Power of personal representative or trustee 55 A personal representative or trustee who resides outside British Columbia and who has the power, either alone or jointly with another or others, to sell and transfer land or to create a charge on land may (a) act in British Columbia by attorney, and (b) unless expressly forbidden by the trust instrument, give a valid power of attorney for the exercise in British Columbia of that power and of all discretionary powers in connection with it to any person capable of acting as attorney, including a co-personal representative or a co-trustee. [81] Marian states in her notice of application that: According to Section 55 of the Land Title Act, an Executor cannot have a Power of Attorney to sell land unless the Executor resides outside of the Province. [82] During submissions, she conceded that the effect of her position was that an executor who resides in British Columbia could not sell land in this province by granting a power of attorney to another, for example, an adult sibling, but that if she/he resided in another province, she/he could. [83] I disagree. Section 55 of the Land Title Act does not in any way apply to personal representatives who are resident of British Columbia. Furthermore, there is nothing in either the Land Title Act or the Power of Attorney Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 370 which prevented Rick granting Theresa a power of attorney such that she could accept the offer while he was out of the country. [84] In any event, ss. 25.1(2) and (3) of the Land Title Act deal with the effect of void instruments: Void instruments -- interest acquired or not acquired 25.1 (2) Even though an instrument purporting to transfer a fee simple estate is void, a transferee who (a) is named in the instrument, and (b) in good faith and for valuable consideration, purports to acquire the estate, is deemed to have acquired that estate on registration of that instrument. (3) Even though a registered instrument purporting to transfer a fee simple estate is void, a transferee who (a) is named in the instrument, (b) is, on the date that this section comes into force, the registered owner of the estate, and (c) in good faith and for valuable consideration, purported to acquire the estate, is deemed to have acquired that estate on registration of that instrument. [85] Marian has also not adduced any evidence relating to the alleged "rigging" of the bidding process, an allegation that is tantamount to fraud. [86] In fact, the evidence before me in August 2014 was to the opposite effect. The Property was exposed to the market and the sale was then approved by the court. [87] I would add that the arguments Marian makes at this hearing were identical to those made at the hearing on April 28 and 29, 2016. [88] There is also the fact that the numbered company was not named as an application respondent in the notice of application, although a copy of the applicable materials were sent to its records and registered office by double registered mail. [89] In the event I am wrong in the conclusions I have reached on this issue, I would not grant the relief sought in any event until the numbered company was named as an application respondent and re-served. [90] I also dismiss relief (d), which relates to the production of certain Fortis BC records pertaining to the time frame when Marian and Gordon illegally occupied the Property. Although Fortis, through its counsel, indicated that it would provide those records, I am of the view that this request is another example of Marian delaying the orderly administration and winding up of the estate, and no useful purpose would be achieved by making this order. [91] The final relief sought is (e), that is for the court to assess the amount of costs Marian should receive as a result of my May 13, 2016 orders, which were made within the context of my May 2016 Reasons (the "May 2016 orders"). [92] At that time, I dismissed a number of orders sought by Gordon and Marian, including a second attempt to have Rick removed as executor. It was at this time that I assessed special costs against Gordon at $7,500 and $2,500 against Marian, and found that Gordon had effectively abandoned any alleged interest qua beneficiary in the estate. [93] Rick had offered to have the estate pay Marian $3,469 for her costs incurred when she was co-executor of the estate. She sought an additional $2,200, which Rick was not prepared to pay since those expenses apparently were related to the illegal occupation of the Property. I agreed with Rick, and I summarily passed Marian's accounts at $3,469. [94] Marian was partly successful in that I did, over Rick's objection, order an interim distribution of $50,000 to the beneficiaries. Marian had sought $100,000. [95] The May 2016 orders also included "costs of these applications are to be paid by the estate". [96] Marian now seeks to have her costs for those applications assessed at an amount in excess of $16,000. This includes approximately $11,000 in legal fees and $3,500 being 50% of the costs of transcripts of various proceedings, including the hearing before Master Harper. I understand that the balance of the transcript costs were paid for by Gordon. [97] Marian's claim for costs is completely out of proportion to any amount that would be reasonable under the circumstances. I do not understand, for example, why the significant costs for obtaining many transcripts was incurred. [98] Furthermore, quite apart from the fact that some of the expenses were incurred after the May 2016 orders, Marian was only successful on the issue of the interim distribution, and even then the order was for half of the amount requested. [99] There is also no basis for her receiving reimbursement from the estate for $11,000 of legal fees, particularly when I consider that her accounts were ordered passed in the amount offered by Rick and the orders which arise from the Decision regarding her remuneration. [100] Under the circumstances which existed at the time of the May 2016 applications, I assess her costs on a party and party lump sum basis, including disbursements and taxes at $750. [101] There is then the issue as to costs for her application which form the basis of these reasons. [102] I have dismissed all items sought by Marian with the exception of the costs of $750. In my view her conduct in relation to the matters which occupied most of the hearing of her application, being the review of the Decision and the attempt to set aside the sale of the Property, bordered on being worthy of reproof or rebuke, which would warrant an order of special costs against her. And I note that the notice of application does advance egregious allegations against Rick. [103] But I recognize that the argument relating to s. 55 of the Land Title Act was brought by a self-represented litigant who I can only assume had no legal advice on the merits of that argument. The same can also perhaps be said regarding Marian's attempt to have the court review the "recommendations/suggestions" of Master Harper, notwithstanding the fact that it was clearly a decision to which R. 23-6(8) and (9) applied. [104] Accordingly, I assess lump sum party and party costs against Marian in the amount of $1,500, including disbursements and taxes. When the $750 in costs referred to in para. 100 are offset, this will result in a net amount owing by Marian to the estate of $750 and which should be deducted from her next distribution. [105] I have considered the issue of special costs against Marian in the hope of avoiding further expense to Rick and the estate; however, in fairness to Rick, should he wish me to reconsider this issue he has liberty to apply to do so. IV. CONCLUSIONS [106] In conclusion: (a) the Victoria action is dismissed, and Gordon is to obtain leave of the court prior to commencing any proceeding against Rick and others referred to in these reasons within the time frame set out in these reasons; (b) the winding up of the estate is to be completed within 120 days of these reasons or the conclusion of any appeal(s); (c) Marian's application which includes setting aside the sale of the Property and reviewing the Decision of Master Harper is dismissed, with the exception of costs relating to the May 2016 orders; and (d) the net amount of costs to be paid by Marian is $750 which is to be deducted from the next distribution to the beneficiaries. [107] Rick is also entitled to his costs of the hearing of these applications which are to be paid as special costs from the estate. He also has leave to seek special costs against Gordon and Marian. [108] As difficult as family acrimony can be to its members, I can only hope that Marian finally recognizes that she is in effect paying 25% of the costs incurred by Rick in opposing the lengthy application she brought. And she has also borne 25% of the significant costs incurred by Rick over the years in relation to the administration of the estate which have largely arisen as a result of her and Gordon's conduct. After reviewing these reasons, she should carefully consider how she conducts herself in this proceeding as it moves to what should be its conclusion over the next 120 days. "Abrioux J."