This claimant did not have a lawyer and his lawsuits against ICBC were dismissed by the court. This decision was clearly to help prevent misuse of the litigation process (Keremelevski v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,2011 BCCA 369). What was clear to the Court of Appeal was that the proceedings had no sensible basis in law or fact and had absolutely no chance of success. Accordingly, all the applications of the applicant were dismissed.  This is another example of why you should hire a personal injury lawyer for your injury claim. Take a read of my article on why you should hire a lawyer for your ICBC injury claim
As the court pointed out in making this unusual Order: 

“[12]  Mr. Keremelevski has clearly demonstrated that he has no real comprehension of the court process and he persistently files applications in this Court that are completely unmeritorious. As Mr. Justice Frankel observed in the above excerpt from the Houweling case, judicial resources are not infinite, and the filing of what could justly be described as a blizzard of applications does take up valuable court time that ought to be used to hear other matters that have substance. As Frankel J.A. also observed, while persons are entitled to have their day in court, they are not entitled to be always in court “day after day in the futile pursuit of remedies to which [they are] not entitled”. As I observed, Mr. Keremelevski has initiated a significant number of proceedings in this Court that have had no possibility of success. He has also sought unsuccessfully leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in some of the proceedings. As is the case with the instant proceedings, it appears these matters have been devoid of merit with no possibility of success. In these circumstances, it seems apparent to me that it is now requisite for this Court to take action to prevent the misuse of its process. It is time, and indeed probably past time, to make an order in the case of Mr. Keremelevski in the terms made in the earlier cases referred to that Mr. Keremelevski will be precluded from filing any further documents in this Court without leave first obtained from a justice of the Court in chambers. As I observed in the Booty case, such an order is requisite to prevent misuse of the litigation process. 

[13]  I consider that the same process ought to be followed here that was followed in the Houweling case. In that case, Frankel J.A. said this: 

[45]  I would direct the Registrar to prepare a formal order to give effect to these reasons. It will not be necessary to obtain Mr. Houweling’s approval as to the form of that order. I would further direct that once that order is entered, it is to be sent to Mr. Houweling at the fax number he provided on the cover of his motion books. The order is also to be brought to the attention of this Court’s registry staff. 

[14]  I would direct the Registrar to do the same in this case as was done in that case. The order is to be provided to both counsel for the respondent and to the applicant. There will be no requirement for any endorsement, either by counsel for the respondent or the applicant on this order.” 

Posted byMr. Renn A. Holness

1 Comment

  1. This NDP protectionist B.C. Gov’t corporation is reminiscent of socialist Eastern Europe in B.C. There is no fair auto market competition. Competition tort &/or legislation for fair competition in auto insurance is one example why less investment is future for B.C. This is shameful, if this province is for LAW AND ORDER it should allow for CLASS ACTION SUITE AGAINST ICBC this a precedent setting case against abuse from ICBC service and rate payers in B.C. contact: [email protected] to join class action suite against ICBC.

Leave a Reply

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

Post comment