R. v. Cummings (W.), 2014 NSCA 61

• Judge: Scanlan, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 05, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2014 NSCA 61;(2014), 346 N.S.R.(2d) 141 (CA)

R. v. Cummings (W.) (2014), 346 N.S.R.(2d) 141 (CA);

    1095 A.P.R. 141

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.018

Wanda Cummings (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, The Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, The Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, and The Nova Scotia Department of Justice (respondents)

(CAC 416755; 2014 NSCA 61)

Indexed As: R. v. Cummings (W.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Scanlan, J.A.

June 10, 2014.

Summary:

In the midst of trial proceedings in the Provincial Court, Cummings sought to have the Supreme Court intervene by way of judicial review. Robertson, J., refused the judicial review and remitted the matter back to the Provincial Court. Cummings appealed. The Registrar moved for dismissal of the appeal due to Cummings' failure to perfect the appeal.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Scanlan, J.A., granted the motion.

Editor's Note: This decision was released with a companion decision: 346 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 1095 A.P.R. 145.

Actions - Topic 2601

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - General - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Scanlan, J.A., stated that "[t]here are Rules of court that would allow parties to take steps to curtail the abuse of vexatious litigants. For some reason which I do not understand, those Rules are seldom, if ever, used. In the absence of parties using the Rules of Court to curtail vexatious litigants, the Court must control its own processes to ensure that efficient use is made of scarce court (public) resources." - See paragraph 3.

Practice - Topic 46

Actions - Commencement of - Bars - Vexatious litigant - [See Actions - Topic 2601 ].

Practice - Topic 8862

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Grounds for - [See Practice - Topic 9340 ].

Practice - Topic 9340

Appeals - Perfecting appeals - Failure to perfect appeal (incl. powers of court) - In the midst of trial proceedings in the Provincial Court, Cummings sought to have the Supreme Court intervene by way of judicial review - Robertson, J., refused the judicial review and remitted the matter back to the Provincial Court - Cummings appealed - The Registrar moved for dismissal of the appeal due to Cummings' failure to perfect the appeal - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Scanlan, J.A., dismissed the appeal - Cummings was a self-represented litigant who was extremely familiar with the court processes and the Civil Procedure Rules - "All courts have finite resources. This appeal alone has had three reported decisions of the Court of Appeal and a motion for date and directions is not even scheduled yet. What is even more disconcerting in this case is that the issues Ms. Cummings wants to litigate have been rendered moot because the proceedings in Provincial Court have caught up and passed her. The trial has been completed, she has been sentenced and the appeal period long since expired." - To the list of factors to be considered, the court added that if the issue has been rendered moot, then the motion should be granted - To allow this appeal to continue would be a waste of the Court's finite time and resources.

Cases Noticed:

Liu v. Atlantic Composites Ltd. (2014), 345 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 1092 A.P.R. 224; 2014 NSCA 58, refd to. [para. 6].

Macdonald et al. v. First National Financial GP Corp. (2013), 330 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 1046 A.P.R. 115; 2013 NSCA 60, refd to. [para. 6].

Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board et al. (2013), 330 N.S.R.(2d) 82; 1046 A.P.R. 82; 2013 NSCA 59, refd to. [para. 6].

Cummings v. Belfast Mini-Mills Ltd. (2011), 306 N.S.R.(2d) 190; 968 A.P.R. 190; 2011 NSSC 320, refd to. [para. 6].

Leigh v. Belfast Mini-Mills Ltd. (2013), 335 N.S.R.(2d) 116; 1060 A.P.R. 116; 2013 NSCA 110, refd to. [para. 7].

Sevgur v. Islam (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 266; 983 A.P.R. 266; 2011 NSCA 114, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Appellant, in person;

Marian Fortune-Stone, Q.C., for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Sheldon Choo, for the respondent, Attorney General of Nova Scotia.

This motion was heard in Chambers, on June 5, 2014, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Scanlan, J.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision, dated June 10, 2014.