Judge scolds frequent litigant for ‘judge shopping’

A man who attempted to make a court application through “irregular” means was ordered to cut it out by the head of the province’s Superior Court.

Andrew Botar sent a sevenpage letter to the office of Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Mary Moreau’s office in February, outlining concerns he has about the way his many civil litigation matters are being handled, and criticizing the conduct of two judges who have presided over his cases, according to an endorsement Moreau filed Thursday.

Both judges — Associate Chief Justice John Rooke and Justice Donna Shelley — earlier imposed court restriction orders that limit Botar’s ability to file new actions.

Despite these orders, which require Botar to follow specific processes if he wishes to file anything new, he contacted Moreau’s office with the February letter, and then followed with a second dispatch in early March, stressing that the chief justice hadn’t yet responded to his concerns.

Botar had argued Shelley and Rooke displayed bias against him. He asked Moreau to replace Rooke, his current case management judge, and made several additional requests related to his ongoing litigation, including ending the court restrictions against him and that she “rescind/void” various court orders.

After noting that the method of communication was irregular, Moreau wrote that she had decided to consider the letters as a formal leave application, which she subsequently dismissed.

In her endorsement, Moreau found Botar’s actions amount to “judge shopping” — the practice of trying to replace one judge with another for a perceived tactical benefit — which is considered an abuse of the court.

“Mr. Botar already faces a presumption that his litigation activities are improper. His attempt to remove Rooke and Shelley from his litigation reaffirms and reinforces that his court activities need to be monitored and controlled to mitigate future abuse of the court,” Moreau stated.

In her conclusions, Moreau warned Botar that further efforts to bypass the rules could result in additional court restrictions, costs being awarded against him or contempt of court proceedings.

The judge also stated that if Botar wants to be considered the “fair-dealing ” litigant, he should pay the $2,000 penalty he was ordered to pay in 2016 when he was found guilty of being in contempt of court for his litigation misconduct.

He hasn’t appealed that decision, and has engaged in much litigation since then.