IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation: Vilag-Virag Trust v. Pannekoek, 2018 BCSC 1743

Date: 20181012

Docket: S183247

Registry: Victoria

Between:

Vilag-Virag Trust

Petitioner

And

Stephen Pannekoek, Constable Del Manek, Chief of Police

Victoria Police Department

Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Tindale

Reasons for Judgment

In Chambers

Appearing for the Petitioner in person: M. Kocsis Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia: Counsel for Respondent, Stephen Pannekoeck: A. Dalmyn R. Macquisten Counsel for Kustom Towing (2009) Ltd.: Place and Date of Hearing: M.H. Martin Victoria, B.C. September 19, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. October 12, 2018





[1] The petitioner pursuant to a notice of application filed August 7, 2018 seeks the following relief:

1) Petition was filed on July 23, 2018. Application for leave to amend the petition to remove the defendants, Stephen Pannekoek and Del Manak, and replace it with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Colombia;

2) Attached to this application is an amended copy of the petition;

3) As this is a bona fide issue, where petitioner entered into an indemnity agreement on June 6, 2015 over all losses and expenses and damages (Registration of Vilag-Virag Trust EIN#98-6078655) as well as perfection of security interest by registering a PPSA Security Agreement on April 6, 2018 under Base Reg. No 694051K, petitioner seeks to obtain an injunction and the release of the collateral held by Kustom Towing, a 2015 Tesla VIN# 5YJSA1H21FFP75628 since March 26, 2018 as well as compensation for the prejudicial actions of the agents of Her Majesty and the amount of the damages to be determined at the hearing;

4) Preservation order with respect to vehicle and injunction; and

5) Correction of all registries to reflect a bona fide a purchaser.

[2] On September 19, 2018 the defendant Stephen Pannekoek consented to being removed as a defendant in the petition and I granted that order.

[3] Also on September 19, 2018 Master Bouck after hearing the petitioner’s notice of application filed on September 7, 2018 removed the defendant Del Manak as a defendant and struck any claims against him. The petitioner’s application to add Kustom Towing (2009) Ltd. (“Kustom Towing”) was also dismissed.

[4] Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia is opposed to the relief sought by the petitioner as is Kustom Towing.

Background

[5] On March 26, 2018 Margit Kocsis was stopped while driving a 2015 Tesla vehicle on Quadra Street in the city of Victoria by Constable Pannekoek. Constable Pannekoek is a municipal constable in the City of Victoria. He issued Ms. Kocsis a violation ticket for the offenses of driving without a driver’s license and driving without insurance. The Tesla vehicle did not have any license plates on it.

[6] The Tesla vehicle was towed and impounded by Kustom Towing at the expense of Ms. Kocsis. The towing and storage fees have not been paid in regard to the Tesla vehicle.

[7] On May 9, 2018 the petitioner issued a notice of civil claim in the Victoria Registry action S182246 against the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia. In that action the petitioner claimed among other things the release of the 2015 Tesla vehicle currently impounded by Kustom Towing and orders under the Personal Property and Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 359 (“PPSA”). July 5, 2018 Master Bouck made an order striking the notice of civil claim without leave to amend.

Discussion

[8] The petitioner wishes to determine entitlement to the Tesla vehicle. Ms. Kocsis also argues that her driver’s license contract was invalid.

[9] The petitioner argues that this action involves the law of agency and debtor relationships.

[10] The petitioner argues that it is the beneficial owner of the Tesla vehicle. The petitioner argues that on April 16, 2018 they registered a PPSA Security Agreement in regards to the Tesla vehicle. That agreement would suggest that the Tesla vehicle is in fact owned by 9297561 Canada Corporation.

[11] The proposed amended petition which was attached to the notice of application filed August 7, 2018 does not show as struck out any deleted wording nor is any new wording underlined. The amended petition does not disclose any cause of action.

[12] The petitioner relies on the affidavit of Margit Kocsis made on July 23, 2018 on this application.

[13] The affidavit of Ms. Kocsis does not provide any evidence which would support the petitioner’s application to add Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as a party to the petition.

[14] The relief sought at para. 3 of the notice of application filed August 7, 2018 in part seeks relief against Kustom Towing. Kustom Towing is not a party to this action.

[15] There is no evidence as to what the petitioner means with regard to the relief claimed in para. 5 of the notice of application filed August 7, 2018.

[16] Mr. Dalmyn on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia argues that Ms. Kocsis uses the vocabulary and methodology of some of the Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument litigation strategies detailed in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. In particular Ms. Kocsis uses terms recognized by lawyers, courts and legislators without regard to their ordinary or legal meaning and sends letters and notices to public officers such as in this case to the Chief Forester. In that regard I would agree with Mr. Dalmyn.

[17] Ms. Kocsis is really arguing that she is not bound by Provincial statutes or Municipal bylaws in regard to being the holder of a valid driver’s license or having insurance on her vehicle.

[18] There is no cause of action disclosed in the petition or the proposed amended petition against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Columbia.

[19] The petition was brought in an effort to circumvent Ms. Kocsis’ obligation to hold a valid driver’s license and have valid insurance on the Tesla vehicle when she was driving it.

[20] I find that this petition is unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious.

Conclusion

[21] The petitioner’s application is dismissed other than their application to remove the defendant Stephen Pannekoek from the proceedings.

[22] As the petition discloses no reasonable claim and is unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious the petition is struck in its entirety without leave to amend pursuant to Rule 9-5 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

[23] Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia shall have their costs in this matter.

“The Honourable Mr. Justice Tindale”