IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Robert DeCoste has claimed that the defendant Robert Burns violated copyright over his written materials.  Mr. Burns was the editor of the newsletter for the Burrard View Housing Co-operative (the co-op) in which they both resided.  Mr. Burns allegedly published excerpts from a letter and a “blog” without permission and with the intent to harm Mr. DeCoste’s reputation.  Mr. Burns counterclaimed for damages for what I will summarize as damage to his reputation and emotional distress.  Mr. Burns did not pursue his counterclaim at trial.  He also issued a third party notice to the Burrard View Housing Co-operative as the allegations against him arose in the course of co-op business. 

[2]           There is a long and unfortunate history of disputes and misunderstandings between Mr. DeCoste, his wife and the Co-op.  It is also apparent that “opposing camps” have developed over events of some years past.  In the course of those disputes, Mr. Burns wrote an editorial in the October 2012 newsletter which Mr. DeCoste took exception to. 

[3]           Mr. DeCoste is apparently in the habit of writing inflammatory missives which have been directed to the Board and circulated by him within the community.  He had also submitted articles and letters to the editor of the newsletter in the past.

[4]           As to the materials in question, Mr. DeCoste sent the letter with the attached blog to Mr. Burns by email on November 14^th 2013.  The email address to which the materials were sent was burrardviewnewsletter@hotmail.com.  The subject line read “For Publication”.  Mr. Burns referenced some passages from the letter in a further editorial and included the blog in the November newsletter which was published shortly thereafter.

[5]           Mr. DeCoste argued that Mr. Burns should have known the letter was personal in nature and that the blog was a draft.  The content of each does not support this assertion as the letter is concerned solely with issues relating to the operation of the co-op and what Mr. DeCoste perceived as deficits in Mr. Burns conduct as editor and in his dealings with the business of the co-op. The blog was fully edited and formatted and was not referenced as a draft.

[6]           He also argued that when he sent the email he understood that Mr. Burns was no longer the editor of the newsletter.  It is unclear why Mr. DeCoste came to that understanding except that in an earlier email Mr. Burns indicated he had “stepped down from the newsletter”.  This understanding begs the question as to why Mr. DeCoste would have sent the materials in question addressed to Mr. Burns.  In any event the email address used would have directed the letter and article to whoever may have been acting as editor.

[7]           Mr. DeCoste also argued that he had mistakenly failed to change the subject heading.  There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Mr. Burns should have known that this was an error.  To the contrary, I find that given the history of difficulties put before the court and the tenor of the other materials Mr. DeCoste has produced in the past that he intended for these materials to be circulated.  Indeed, once they appeared in the newsletter Mr. DeCoste immediately circulated the entire letter and his blog throughout the co-op.

[8]           Any damage to Mr. DeCoste’s reputation, character or integrity is the direct result of the rancorous nature of the materials he chooses to produce and circulate.  

[9]           The claim he has made against Mr. Burns is dismissed.  I also dismiss Mr. Burns’ counterclaim and his 3^rd Party Notice.  Mr. Burns is of course free to refer anyone to these reasons to allay any concerns which may arise as a result of Mr. DeCoste bringing this action against him. 

[10]        I find that Mr. DeCoste’s pursuit of this claim was without any foundation in fact or law and was purely vexatious.  I find that he chose to proceed to trial without any reasonable chance of success.  As such I am awarding a penalty under s.20 (5) of the Rules in favour of each of Mr. Burns and the Burrard View Co-operative Housing. 

[11]        Mr. DeCoste must pay to Mr. Burns $510.00 as a penalty and $255.00 in fees and service expenses.  Mr DeCoste must pay to the co-op $510.00 as a penalty.  I am not aware of any filing fees incurred by the co-op or any other expenses but grant leave for the co-op or Mr. Burns to apply to seek payment of any outstanding expenses. 

[12]        Any party may appear before me to set a payment schedule upon requisition with notice to all other parties and as a continuation of trial and need not file a summons to payment hearing.