This is actually nothing to do with Quatloos or sovereigns but I thought I'd throw it in anyhow as an example of our differing court systems. This is a recent case decided at Alberta's Queen's Bench. Daniel Hill, the now-vexatious litigant, thought he'd been badly treated under his father's will. So he sued his siblings for what he felt was his fair share. This was in 2004 and he's been suing them, over and over, on essentially the same issue ever since. His first lawsuit was in England although none of the parties had an English connection and there was absolutely nothing in the lawsuit tying it to England. So it got booted for lack of jurisdiction. He's had millions in costs awarded against him. He initially paid some costs when it was made clear to him he had to do so to continue but once the court stopped demanding payment of past costs in order to litigate he stopped paying but continued litigating. He's currently about $5,000,000 in arrears.
[1] This action is the seventh proceeding in what Justice Tholl of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan described as a “lengthy and ill-fated pattern of litigation” by Daniel Walter Hill [Daniel Hill] against his brother Paul James Hill [Paul Hill] and others: Hill v Famhill Investments Limited, 2017 SKQB 6 (CanLII) at para 1.
[2] All of Daniel Hill’s proceedings against Paul Hill ultimately arise from the estate plan of their deceased father, Frederick W. Hill [Frederick Hill]. The first action, commencing in 2005, involved the father’s corporate assets once held in trust. This latest action involves the father’s personal assets, also held in trust.
[3] To date, all of the proceedings have been dismissed, discontinued, or struck. In the words of our Court of Appeal, Daniel Hill is “an indefatigable litigant of extraordinary persistence”. Over more than a decade, his litigation against his brother and other aligned persons and entities, has spanned three countries and two provinces. At the time of the hearing of this application, over $3.7 million in costs have been awarded against Daniel Hill, almost none of which has been paid.
[4] All of the costs awards have been registered as judgments, and writs of enforcement have been filed. Nevertheless, to date, the judgment creditors have been unsuccessful in recovering any funds. I am advised that a further cost award from a New York action has recently been handed down against Daniel Hill in the amount of $797,995.05 (US).
[5] This is an application by Paul Hill and certain other defendants in actions initiated by Daniel Hill seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff, Daniel Hill, is a vexatious litigant and to impose court access restrictions. This application arises from a Statement of Claim where Daniel Hill once more sues Paul Hill, and others (Terry Downie, Maurice Bundon, Madonna Foundation), relating again to his father’s estate.
The very extensive history of the litigation is given in condensed for in paragraphs 12 to 21 of the decision.
Hill v Bundon
2018 ABQB 506
http://canlii.ca/t/hsvnd
What is of consequence here are paragraphs 19 and 20;
Note that? When he lost the first time he immediately started a campaign against the Canadian judges who decided against him and tried to use the results in New York. Why New York? That's what the New York judge wondered since the case had absolutely no connection to the United States. It was a Canadian suing his Canadian siblings over issues to do with his father's estate who was also a Canadian. He didn't get any sympathy in New York where Judge Ramos, in contrast to our polite, caring Canadian judges, shoved Hill through the shredder;[19] Undeterred, Daniel Hill then commenced another action in the state of New York against Paul Hill, two previous defendants, nine named others, and “John Does 1-X”. Paul Hill and others applied to strike that action. In the New York action, Daniel Hill made allegations against Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Wilson and Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Côté. Daniel Hill filed a report that he called a bias report in which he, through private investigators, investigated Justice Wilson’s family and background. The investigators went so far as to telephone Justice Wilson’s wife seeking background information.
[20] In dismissing the New York action, the judge noted the large unpaid costs that Daniel Hill had already incurred, and called Daniel Hill’s application an “utterly frivolous case. He ordered that Daniel Hill not bring any other actions in New York (or the United States) and threatened to hold him in contempt and give him gaol time if he did so. The judge further admonished Daniel Hill not to “play games with our court system”. Costs were awarded against Daniel Hill in the amount of $797,995.05 US.
I particularly liked comment 2 of paragraph 73 where Hill's lawyer, who should never have acted for him in the first place given that Hill had no hope of establishing jurisdiction, got hit personally for $25,000 in costs even though he'd acted on contingency and never been paid. However I think Judge Ramos exceeded his jurisdiction with this one;[68] As previously indicated, Daniel Hill’s action in New York was struck out on November 31, 2017 as being without merit. Judge Ramos was highly critical of that action, and so his comments and instructions warrant being reproduced here:
All right. I get the picture. Your client thinks that the Canadian Court thinks it got it wrong. It happens.
No judicial system is perfect. But we have a principle in common-law jurisdictions, United States, Canada, the UK, of finality. You get one shot at the apple. You give it your best shot. You take your appeals.
If you lose, you lose. You don’t start looking for jurisdictions around the United States or around the world to bring new litigation.
...
Sir, you know as well as I do that the rules of res judicata means when you bring an action against somebody you don’t hold back a claim because you want to bring it later. You have to bring all the claims at one time. Any relief that you could have gotten is considered part of res judicata.
And why in the world would you come to New York with what you are saying? It’s a nice town and has a lot of good lawyers, but what interest is it to the people who pay my salary and provide us with this courtroom? Why do they care about this case?
...
I am upset. I really am. This is a huge waste of our effort.
[69] When Daniel Hill’s lawyer complained that the Supreme Court of Canada had denied leave to Daniel Hill’s Canadian actions, Judge Ramos concluded the action Daniel Hill had filed in New York had nothing to do with that jurisdiction, and observed:
That is called losing. You got a plaintiff, a defendant. One of them loses and one of them wins. If you lose, you take an appeal. If you lose your final appeal, it’s over.
[70] Judge Ramos then instructed Daniel Hill to take the stand, personally. This exchange then followed:
The Court: Mr. Hill, I read your papers. And I understand you feel very strongly about this case. This was a family trust. And I think there were five siblings and you were left out of what you felt was the benefit that you were entitled to.
I don’t know what happened in Alberta or Saskatchewan. It didn’t happen in the United States. I don’t know any of the parties in this action. You litigated five or six times now and lost every time or withdrawn the case.
As I understand, over $2 million in unpaid costs that you owe these defendants and now you come here to New York State and bring an action that New York State doesn’t, quite frankly, care about. We love justice, but we take care of New York’s cases, not Canada’s cases, not the UK’s cases.
I will give you an order now. You are not to bring another lawsuit in New York State, any state in the United States, any jurisdiction in the world except Canada unless you get my prior permission. If you violate that, I will hold you in contempt of court and give you jail time. Understand that?
Daniel Hill: Yes.
The Court: This is over. You don’t play games with our court system. Now leave. ... Utterly frivolous case.
[71] At the subsequent March 8, 2018 costs hearing Daniel Hill’s lawyer attempted to re-argue the November 31, 2017 dismissal, which was denied by Judge Ramos. Daniel Hill’s lawyer also indicated that the November 31, 2017 decision is under appeal. Judge Ramos proceeded to sharply criticize counsel for Daniel Hill, observing the lawyer should have known better to proceed with the New York action. In Canada the dispute had been repeatedly adjudicated to the Supreme Court of Canada: “... this is a frivolous lawsuit.”
[72] Judge Ramos concluded:
... Look, I’m not going to re-argue the dismissal motion. And I’m certainly not going to consider the merits of the case or cases that were litigated in Canada.
I have great respect for the Canadian courts. My god, they issue multi-page opinions, single space. They went into incredible detail. They scrutinized every allegation, every defence, every claim. I am very impressed. And apparently your client could care less. ...
...
Frivolous in its complete sense. Statute of limitations has run. You don’t have jurisdiction over the individual defendants. The corporate defendants I’m not aware did anything as against your client. It was only a fight between his brother or brothers and sisters.
These - these claims were either included by reference or specifically included in the Canadian actions. Your client - as you should well know yourself - that an unsuccessful client cannot repeatedly bring claims on the same underlying theory against the same parties for the same wrong.
You can’t have a cause of action for conversion if the Court initially ... ruled that your client has no interest. You can’t be guilty - you can’t even legitimately argue a conversion or unjust enrichment claim unless there’s an underlying right to those assets. And the Canadian courts ruled against your clients rather convincingly.
[73] In the end:
1. Daniel Hill was personally fined $5,000.00,
2. $25,000.00 in costs were assessed directly against Daniel Hill’s lawyer (who indicated he was only being paid on a contingency basis), and
3. $797,995.05 in costs were awarded again Daniel Hill for his abusive New York litigation.
Paragraph 72 has a comment by Judge Ramos that I think points out a huge fault in our court systems;I will give you an order now. You are not to bring another lawsuit in New York State, any state in the United States, any jurisdiction in the world except Canada unless you get my prior permission. If you violate that, I will hold you in contempt of court and give you jail time. Understand that?
Canadian courts spend huge amounts of resources writing up detailed decisions that could be easily dismissed with a fraction of the judicial effort. After 136 paragraphs this decision finally deemed Hill to be a vexatious litigant and had some very polite non-cost criticism of his lawyers;I have great respect for the Canadian courts. My god, they issue multi-page opinions, single space. They went into incredible detail. They scrutinized every allegation, every defence, every claim. I am very impressed. And apparently your client could care less. ...
IX. Conclusion
[129] Daniel Hill is declared a vexatious litigant. He may not initiate or continue any litigation in an Alberta Court except with leave of the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge of the court in question, or his or her designate. Daniel Hill may only seek leave after he has paid all outstanding cost awards against him in all jurisdictions.
[130] Daniel Hill is required to personally attend any Alberta court proceedings, no matter whether he is or is not represented by counsel.
[131] I have a final observation that is not for Daniel Hill, but rather the lawyer or lawyers who represent him. I have not evaluated the merits of the current action, or the Colleen Legacy Trust v Bruce Cowie, Docket 1701 14874 action. I was not asked to do so. These lawsuits are now presumptively abusive and illegitimate because of Daniel Hill’s current status as a vexatious litigant: Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 87 (CanLII) at para 19, leave denied 2018 ABCA 111 (CanLII); Re Gauthier, 2018 ABQB 99 (CanLII) at para 8; Re Botar, 2018 ABQB 193 (CanLII) at para 16; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok, 2018 ABQB 316 (CanLII) at para 17; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2018 ABQB 220 (CanLII) at para 9; Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 355 (CanLII) at para 11; Lee v Hache, 2018 ABQB 384 (CanLII) at para 8; Bourque v Tensfeldt, 2018 ABQB 419 (CanLII) at para 15.
[132] The onus is therefore on the litigant subject to court access restrictions to displace the presumption that his or her proposed filing or continued action is an abuse of process: Re Thompson, 2018 ABQB 87 (CanLII) at para 32. This may be possible for one or both of the now stayed actions of Daniel Hill in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. That issue is for another time.
[133] The point I wish to stress is reviewed in detail by Thomas J in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 530 (CanLII), 61 Alta LR (6th) 324. Lawyers by their oaths of office swear to not pervert the law or promote frivolous litigation: para 60. They have both a professional obligation (paras 61-62) and a duty as officers of the Courts to not abuse the Courts’ processes (paras 63-70). “I was just following orders” is no defence: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 530 at para 69, LC v Alberta, 2015 ABQB 84 (CanLII) at para 248, 605 AR 1.
[134] Justice Thomas in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 530 (CanLII) at para 74 concluded:
... any lawyer who acts on behalf of a client who engages in frivolous, vexatious, or abusive litigation is potentially personally subject to a costs award. A lawyer who is the mechanism to conduct frivolous, vexatious, or abusive litigation is not merely acting contrary of his or her obligations to the courts and other litigants. This is also a breach of a lawyer's obligations to his or her own client. By facilitating that misconduct the lawyer 'digs a grave for two.' [Emphasis in original.]
[135] I agree, and also agree with the conclusion in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 530 (CanLII) at para 99 that a lawyer who conducts a collateral attack that will inevitably fail in the face of res judicata is potentially personally subject to cost awards that follow.
[136] This is not to say that the current action and/or the Colleen Legacy Trust v Bruce Cowie, Docket 1701 14874 lawsuit do not have merit. They may. However, any lawyer who pursues an action for Daniel Hill that is rejected as a collateral attack on concluded litigation may very well face this personal sanction.
