IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20140624

Docket: S143080

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Ron Korkut

Plaintiff

And

Christopher E.
Hinkson

Defendant

Before:
Associate Chief Justice Cullen

Oral Reasons for Judgment

In
Chambers

[1]            
THE COURT: This is an application brought by the defendant, the
Honourable Chief Justice Christopher E. Hinkson, to dismiss the proceedings
brought against him by the plaintiff, Ron Korkut, in a Notice of Civil Claim
filed April 22, 2014.

[2]            
As I understand the Notice of Civil Claim, it proceeds from a dispute
that the present plaintiff had with the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia following a motor vehicle accident, which also constituted a
hit-and-run, which is either a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act or,
alternatively, a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[3]            
In the course of his pursuit of the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia, Mr. Korkut brushed up against a number of different lawyers,
including Mr. McGee of the Law Society of British Columbia, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Bilinsky
of the Law Society of British Columbia, and he in due course brought an action
against Mr. McGee, which, in the fullness of time, was dismissed by Mr. Justice
Nathan Smith on August 2, 2013.

[4]            
Mr. Korkut asserts that the dismissal was done without any tangible
reason or authority.  However, there is no basis on the record for that
assertion and it appears that, although Mr. Korkut took steps to pursue an
appeal from Mr. Justice Smith’s decision, he elected not to sign a draft copy
of Mr. Justice Smith’s order, and in the result Mr. Justice Smith was unable to
sign the order and that impeded the course of the appeal.

[5]            
Thereafter, Mr. Korkut wrote the Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson on a
number of occasions and he was responded to by the law officer for the Supreme
Court, informing him that neither Chief Justice Hinkson nor she was in a
position to give him legal advice, and in effect advising him to seek counsel
elsewhere.

[6]            
In the result, Mr. Korkut was dissatisfied with the response he received
from the Chief Justice via the Court’s law officer and so he lodged an action
against the Chief Justice, essentially asserting that the Chief Justice
overlooked his complaints about the conduct of the “staff working under his
supervision” and seeking, by way of relief, an answer to the question, “Who is
legally responsible for supervising the staff working under the supervision of
the Chief Justice Honourable Christopher E. Hinkson and correct their wrong?”

[7]            
I have read over the Notice of Civil Claim on a number of different
occasions, and I am quite simply unable to discern any coherent basis for a
cause of action.

[8]            
This application is brought pursuant to Rule 9-5(1) that reads as
follows:

At any stage of a proceeding, the
court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a
pleading, petition or other document on the ground that:

(a) it discloses no reasonable
claim or defence, as the case may be,

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious,

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or
delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the
process of the court,

and the court may pronounce
judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the
costs of the application to be paid as special costs.

[9]            
That is what the applicant seeks in this case, although in his oral
submissions to me, Mr. Waddell, I think quite fairly, modified his position
with respect to costs, indicating that in view of the somewhat querulous nature
of the pleadings that ordinary costs would suffice rather than special costs.

[10]        
This is a case that is closely akin to a case decided in 2012, styled Graham
v. The Honourable Mr. Justice Bracken, 2012 Docket No. S14387, Duncan
Registry, November 26, 2012.

[11]        
In that case, after considering an action brought against a Justice of
this Court I concluded as follows at paras. 19 and 21:

[19]      In my view, in respect of the allegations of
negligence and defamation, the plaintiff’s pleadings fall well short of
establishing a reasonable claim and fall squarely within the definition of an
unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious claim in the sense of being
confusing, irrelevant, and without substance.  The appropriate remedy for a
party who considers a case to have been wrongly decided against him is to
appeal.  Launching a groundless lawsuit which is bound to fail for want of any
valid factual or legal foundation diverts the court from dealing with the many
valid causes of action seeking hearing and resolution and represents an abuse
of its process.

[21]  In the circumstances, I
conclude that the plaintiff’s pleadings should be struck as being in violation
of Rule 9-5(1)(a), (b), and (d).  I am satisfied that this is one of those
cases where the plaintiff respondent should not be given leave to amend his
pleadings as there is nothing which I can see in the record or which I have
heard from the plaintiff that is capable of altering the fact that this is an
action that is bound to fail and one which represents an abuse of the court’s
process.

[12]        
Those paragraphs, in my view, are apposite to the case before me here
today and I will make the same order in this case as I did in the case of Graham
v. The Honourable Justice Bracken in 2012.

[13]        
I do note, parenthetically, that in the Notice of Application counsel
for the defendant/applicant has indicated that under s. 63 of the Judges Act,
supra, inquiries concerning judges must be conducted by the Judicial
Council of Canada and that complaints about the conduct of a judge in a
superior court must be dealt with pursuant to s. 63 of the Judges Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. J-1, and I would refer the plaintiff to that aspect of the
pleadings.

[14]        
 Is there anything further then, Mr. Waddell?

[15]        
I will order costs.  There will be ordinary costs.

[16]        
MR. WADDELL:  Thank you, and if you could dispense with the need for
approval of Mr. Korkut to the order?

[17]        
THE COURT:  I will.  I will make that order, as well.

“A.F. Cullen ACJ.”

__________________________

Associate
Chief Justice Cullen