06.25.2019 05:20 PM

Someone complained to the Law Society about me

It didn’t work out for him.

Came across this when combing the archives for something else. It made me laugh out loud: the Law Society didn’t even bother to contact me, so without merit did they consider Mark Bourrie’s complaint.

Better luck next time.

6 Comments

  1. Steven says:

    A good day.

    Incidentally, I think it’s about time that the Law Society started charging a fee ( even if it’s a token amount) for filing complaints which is non-refundable to the complainant if the complaint is found to be without merit.

    It would serve to winnow out the pathological and vexatious malcontents like Bourrie.

  2. Any news on the McHale law-suit?

  3. Student501 says:

    Hmmm…How many legal matters has he instigated so far ?

    I am not expert but if you ask me, his conduct is beginning to border on vexatious litigant:

    “What is a Vexatious Litigant?

    When it comes to deciding who is a vexatious litigant, the test is somewhat open and discretionary. Justice Ken Campbell has given us the benefit of a good summary of the law, including a good description of what a vexatious litigant is, in a recent decision of Dobson v. Green, 2012 ONSC 4432:

    [7] Generally speaking, vexatious litigants often share common characteristics. They advance claims that are often manifestly without merit. They tend to ignore adverse rulings and procedural setbacks, such as costs orders against them. They may resort to multiple, repetitive proceedings, often against the same adversary. They will sometimes similarly engage others who present themselves as an obstacle in their path. They often launch court proceedings as if unconcerned about the financial resources invariably consumed by such actions. They tend to be litigants who, with persistence, abuse the court process for their own selfish and single-minded goals. They are typically self-represented litigants who seem intent, through a series of persistent and fruitless proceedings, on wearing down their opponents through an ongoing battle of attrition.

    This is similar to the classic list of characteristics of a vexatious litigant, from the oft-cited case of Re Lang Michener and Fabian2, which is quoted from in Justice Campbell’s decision. This list, which hasn’t really changed since it was first enumerated in 1987 is a number of typical characteristics of a vexatious litigant (not all of which are present in every case):

    (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 from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.

    The case itself involved a family law dispute, where the former husband essentially alleged that the shares held by the former wife in a mining corporation were worth hundreds of millions of dollars (there are also various other issues, but this seems to be the central one). The underlying dispute, which has apparently been going on since 1993, is said to involve multiple separate actions over essentially the same subject matter, multiple unpaid costs awards and unsuccessful attempts to have the former wife charged criminally. As a result, the judge granted the vexatious litigant order.”

    Source: http://wiffenlaw.ca/blog/item/58-how-to-spot-a-vexatious-litigant

    Other info:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/06/18/court_dismisses_mans_vexatious_litigant_appeal.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation#Canada

  4. Ridiculosity says:

    Done. Like dinner.

    To atone for his sins, perhaps M. Bourrie should consider investing his free time more constructively. Maybe by serving dinner to those spending the Holidays at a homeless shelter this year.

    It won’t be total restitution, but at very least a semi-acknowledgement of what a complete asshole he has been.

  5. Jon Powers says:

    And now we all know your middle names. Perhaps that was Mr. Bourrie’s evil intention all along. Game, set, match.

  6. CPritchard says:

    I would love to see the letter written in response … “FOAD, strong letter to follow.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*