LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL

HEARING DIVISION

Citation: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue, 2017 ONLSTH 215

Date: November 9, 2017

Tribunal File No.: 17H-125

BETWEEN:

The Law Society of Upper Canada

Applicant

- and -

Glenn Patrick Bogue

Respondent

Before: Murray Walter Chitra (chair)

Andrea Alexander

Paul M. Cooper

Heard: September 29, 2017, in Toronto, Ontario

Appearances: Joshua Elcombe, for the Applicant

Respondent, self-represented





Summary:

BOGUE – Procedure – Capacity – Medical Examination – There was evidence that the Lawyer had acted in a number of legal proceedings in which he raised a series of bizarre, irrational and unsupportable arguments that were focused on a belief in elaborate historical conspiracies – Even if they were raised at his clients’ directions, as an officer of the court he had a duty not to advance arguments that were out of touch with reality – His arguments had been repeatedly rejected by judges – A panel of this Tribunal had concluded that it was necessary to suspend the Lawyer’s licence on an interim interlocutory basis – This raised reasonable grounds that the Lawyer may be, or may have been, incapacitated – An independent medical examination would assist in determining whether his conduct arose from delusion or something else.

REASONS FOR DECISION

REASONS FOR DECISION on a motion for a medical examination

[1] Murray Walter Chitra (for the panel):– The Law Society has brought a motion under s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (“Act”) for an order requiring that Glenn Patrick Bogue (“Lawyer”) be examined by a forensic psychiatrist to assess whether he is incapacitated, any prognosis, and any appropriate terms and conditions in light of his medical condition.

[2] For the reasons that follow, we are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Lawyer might be, or might have been, incapacitated and that the proposed examination would provide significant assistance in deciding the issue.

[3] After considering recommendations from both parties on the physicians to be specified, we will issue the order set out at conclusion of this decision.

[4] Given that the Law Society has not requested costs on this motion, none are ordered.

BACKGROUND

[5] The Lawyer was called to the bar in Ontario in 1985. He has no disciplinary history.

[6] The Lawyer was not in active practice between 1987 and 2015. In February of 2015, he commenced working in Toronto as a sole practitioner primarily in the area of civil litigation. It would appear that many of his clients were Indigenous people.

[7] Between March 18, 2016 and February 17, 2017, the Law Society received several complaints about the Lawyer’s conduct in relation to litigation matters. He is currently the subject of six investigations.

[8] The nature of the allegations were of such concern to the Law Society that it brought a motion under s. 49.27(1) of the Act for the interlocutory suspension of Mr. Bogue’s licence to practise law.

[9] On April 12, 2017, a panel of this Tribunal granted the Lawyer an adjournment on that motion, but imposed an interim interlocutory suspension of his licence: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue, 2017 ONLSTH 119.

[10] At para. 27, the panel noted:

On behalf of clients, Mr. Bogue has made submissions that, on their face, are of significant concern because they may hamper the administration of justice and harm his clients’ interests. For example, he has commenced problematic court proceedings against several judges, the Queen and the Prime Minister personally. In multiple proceedings, the documents suggest, the Lawyer has relied on theories that deny the authority of the Canadian federal and provincial governments.

[11] At para. 29 the panel observed that different courts had expressed concerns about the nature of Mr. Bogue’s submissions and litigation strategies. By way of example:

… In Steinkey v. Canada, 2017 FC 124, Prothonotary Lafreniere of the Federal Court said at paras. 5 and 8-9:

Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ protestations to the opposite, they clearly fall within a class of individuals described in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571 (Meads) as “OPCA [Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument] litigants”, who follow a well-known path of illogic, presumption and pseudo-legal rants. The pleading before me is a classic case of a vexatious party seeking to foist on the Crown a unilateral agreement and trust obligations based on nonsensical arguments …

Finally, I note that the Statement of Claim was signed by a lawyer, Glenn P. Bogue, and that Mr. Bogue also filed written representations in opposition of the motion before me. In Meads, Justice Rooke observed at paras. 643-645 that, as an officer of the court, each lawyer has certain duties not only to the client, but also to the justice system as a whole. In particular, it is a lawyer’s duty to not participate in or facilitate OPCA schemes.

I am very troubled to see that Mr. Bogue accepted a retainer to draft and file pleadings which ultimately assist in the implementation of a vexatious litigant strategy. I therefore direct that this Order and Reasons, along with a copy of the Statement of Claim and the parties’ motion materials,be delivered to the Law Society of Upper Canada for review, to determine whether any sanction is warranted against Mr. Bogue.

[12] The interlocutory motion panel concluded that the evidence before it, including the comments from multiple judges, made a strong case that Mr. Bogue’s litigation techniques represented a significant risk of harm to the public and public interest in the administration of justice if he was permitted to continue to practise during the period of the adjournment. It ordered the interim suspension of his licence. That suspension remains in place.

THE LAW

[13] The Law Society now seeks an order that the Lawyer be examined to assess whether he is incapacitated. Section 37(1) of the Act states:

A licensee is incapacitated … if, by reason of physical or mental illness, other infirmity or addiction to or excessive use of alcohol or drugs, he or she is incapable of meeting any of his or her obligations as a licensee.

[14] Where capacity is in question, s. 38 provides that the Law Society may make application to this Tribunal for a determination “whether a licensee is or has been incapacitated.”

[15] To aid in this determination, s. 39 of the Act states:

(1) … the Hearing Division may, on motion by a party to the application or on its own motion, make an order requiring the licensee who is the subject of the application to be examined by one or more physicians or psychologists.

(2) The examining physicians or psychologists shall be specified by the Hearing Division after giving the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to make recommendations.

(3) The purpose of the examination is,

a) to assess whether the licensee is or has been incapacitated;

b) to assess the extent of any incapacity and the prognosis for recovery; and

c) to assist in the determination of any other medical or psychological issue in the application.

(4) The licensee shall answer the questions of the examining physicians or psychologists that are relevant to the examination.

(5) The answers given under subsection (4) are admissible in evidence in the application, including any appeal, and in any proceeding in court arising from the application, but are not admissible in any other proceeding.

[16] An order under s. 39 will only be made when the Law Society has demonstrated, through reliable evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe a licensee may be or have been incapacitated. This is less than the civil standard of a balance of probabilities.

[17] Further, the Law Society must demonstrate that the proposed independent examination will provide significant additional assistance, given the evidence available.

THE HEARING

The Law Society’s Position

[18] In support of this application, the Law Society has filed a number of affidavits of Renae Oliphant, Investigation Counsel, along with supporting exhibits. This includes the motion record for the earlier interlocutory suspension proceeding. Ms. Oliphant was cross-examined extensively by the Lawyer.

[19] The evidence disclosed that the Lawyer has brought a number of proceedings or motions on behalf of individuals before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada.

[20] The defendants or responding parties have included Children’s Aid Societies and their employees, federal and provincial governments, judges and lawyers in their personal capacity, law firms, the Queen personally, the Governor General personally, the Prime Minister personally, Parliament and the Bank of Canada.

[21] It is the assertion of the Law Society that these lawsuits are based on bizarre international conspiracy theories. It was argued that these are articulated in rambling arguments that demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of Canadian law and raise reasonable concerns that the Lawyer may be delusional.

[22] A number of examples of this were offered. In one e-mail to opposing counsel dated February 18, 2016 the Lawyer wrote:

In the big picture, the Vatican (bank) pushed its Feidal [sic] system across the English channel in 1066. It then combined with King Philip to kill the Templar Knights and steal their International bank which today is the IMF/BIS World Bank.

This is the force behind Canada’s big 5 private banks, who successfully placed Ontario $300 Billion in debt, owed by every lawyer, judge, doctor. Millionaire in Ontario. YOU will pay this debt as the other 99% of Ontarians are buried in debt.

The Vatican bank via Beijing will shortly foreclose on Canada as the Tar Sands are failing and our dollar sinks to U.S. $, 60, and USA defaults, which is a mathematical certainty.

Through its Corporate Crown shell (Canada and Ontario), the Bank of England has undertaken the Cultural Genocide of Canadian Aboriginals simply because they still hold Allodial title to our land, as opposed to Fee Simple Feudal Use Title that Ontario lawyers (unwittingly) defend for the Queen.

[23] In another e-mail dated May 18, 2016 the Lawyer wrote to opposing counsel:

You now have our Amended Motion.

Given its massive scope, I am writing to summarize its content …

The Queen’s legitimacy to sit as Monarch is also today questioned by:

1) the illegitimacy of Edward IV,

2) her conviction for murder via Canadian eye witnesses in a Common Law Court, and

3) her Oath to the Pope to obtain Vatican gold to back her illegal, fiat currency banks …

You will note we seek to add Justin Trudeau for his secret Oath to a power foreign to our Aboriginal roots.

You will also note the Pope has dissolved all corporations which glean their existance [sic] from any insurance bonds backed by Vatican gold. This may affect your firm’s legitimacy to practice law.

[24] The material before us disclosed other examples of similar thinking. The Lawyer:

• has claimed that Canada is part of the United States and subject to the U.S. Constitution;

• advised opposing counsel that he would be appealing a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to a fictional tribunal;

• sought damages in the amount of $30 million against Ontario and Alberta judges and lawyers for crimes against humanity;

• in pleadings filed with Federal Court, alleged that the “HSBC funneled the money that enabled Italy’s criminal syndicate Mdrangheta to run a Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult between the Vatican and Montreal. Former Prime Minister Harper and several Cabinet Ministers are alleged to be involved”;

• in a reply factum in the same litigation, argued “Our birth certificates are BONDS complete with 2 UPC codes that allow the Crown to pledge the bonds to Private Banks to be traded globally on the bond market, backed by human labor (and the gold of the Private Vatican Bank), which is tantamount to a continuation of the slave trade and feudal system by elite European supremacist families.”

• pled that “The Privy Council is the inner Circle of the secret Order of the Garter, headed by The Vatican and The Queen, which controls all secret societies throughout the world” and sought from the Court a monetary award of $3 quadrillion “which amount equals the global sub-prime real estate debt”; and

• in a criminal proceeding in British Columbia, argued that Canada is a Crown Corporation registered on the New York Stock exchange and “as such is merely a subsidiary corporation of United States Inc., which in turn is subsequent corporation to the East Indian Trading Company, all of whom have headquarters in Washington, D.C.”

[25] The Law Society suggests that these and many other statements and actions on the part of the Lawyer raise reasonable concerns that he is or may have been incapacitated. In the absence of medical information, the Law Society argues that an assessment would provide significant assistance in making such a determination and how to proceed with ongoing investigations.

The Lawyer’s Position

[26] The Lawyer provided a 65-page unsworn statement supported by 50 exhibits. As well, he testified at some length.

[27] Mr. Bogue stated that he had always been polite and co-operative with the Law Society. He denied initiating any litigation based on bizarre conspiracy theories. Rather he asserts that he has taken a cogent, co-ordinated approach to bring new or novel approaches to his cases, and that this has greatly reduced litigation costs.

[28] Mr. Bogue stated that he had made certain jurisdictional arguments at the direction of specific clients who wished to make Canada a better place. He stressed that these arguments are not his theories and should not be taken as a reflection of his personal beliefs.

[29] Nevertheless, the Lawyer offered material to us in support of many of these positions, including newspaper reports, press releases, e-mails and excerpts from articles on a range of subjects including:

• how Pierre Trudeau turned us into debt slaves;

• why the whole banking system is a scam;

• how the Vatican Bank stands accused of the 1978 murder of Pope John Paul I;

• Saudi Arabian money-laundering; and

• Vatican complicity in genocide in fascist Croatia.

[30] The Lawyer suggested such arguments can be supported by experts. He asserted that the Law Society’s investigations to date in the complaints against him have not been thorough and provide no foundation for any of the conclusions being advanced at this motion.

[31] He challenged the expertise of the Law Society to comment on a range of subjects including his health. He noted that he has a Masters degree in History and has recognized knowledge in this area. As well, he has studied and written extensively on matters such as banking and international finance.

[32] The Lawyer provided affidavits and letters from clients speaking positively of his skills as their lawyer and his successful results. He provided documentation that he states confirms that he has successfully secured a significant 2016 arbitration judgment on behalf of a client thus demonstrating his unique competence as an advocate.

[33] Mr. Bogue testified that he had never been diagnosed or treated for mental illness. He asserted that there is no evidence to support any suggestion of incapacity. He acknowledged that one of his potential lawyers had indicated that an assessment could be helpful. However, he was not willing to agree to such as assessment at this time.

ANALYSIS

[34] A panel of this Tribunal has concluded that it was necessary to suspend the Lawyer’s licence on an interim interlocutory basis because he has been pursuing litigation using strategies, which on their face appear to have little legal foundation, to the detriment of both his clients and the justice system.

[35] It is clear from the evidence before us that the Lawyer has acted as counsel in a number of legal proceedings in which he has raised a series of bizarre, irrational and unsupportable arguments. These seem be focused on a belief in elaborate historical conspiracies involving the Vatican, the Queen, international banks, the Chinese government, drug companies and many others.

[36] During the course of this proceeding the Lawyer argued that some of the positions he had advanced had been at the direction of clients, the suggestion being that he did not accept or agree with some of them. We observe that at no point in his communications with other counsel does the Lawyer make such a distinction or in any way qualify or filter his positions.

[37] Even assuming this to be the case, at the end of the day, it makes no practical difference. A lawyer has a duty as an officer of the court not to advance arguments that are out of touch with reality, no matter what a client might wish.

[38] The Lawyer asserts that he has taken a clear and cogent approach to his litigation and sought to advance new or novel approaches to his clients’ cases. However, judges have described this as a vexatious litigation strategy founded on pseudolegal rants and nonsensical arguments.

[39] The Lawyer appears to have relied on non-existent laws, treaties and tribunals. His arguments have been repeatedly rejected by judges. This does not appear to have discouraged the Lawyer from continuing to earnestly promote these theories with vigour and obvious conviction. That includes this motion.

[40] It is the Law Society’s position that the Lawyer’s persistent pursuit of patently irrational arguments in the face of multiple adverse rulings raises reasonable concerns with respect to both the Lawyer’s judgment and capacity. We agree.

[41] On the face of it, this raises reasonable grounds that the Lawyer may be or may have been incapacitated. Further, in the absence of any existing medical information, it is not possible to make a determination on the evidence gathered to date whether the conduct in question might arise from delusion or something else. An independent medical examination would provide significant assistance in this regard.

[42] It would seem that the Law Society and Lawyer have already had much discussion about how this might be accomplished.

[43] On July 12, 2017, the Law Society asked the Lawyer whether he would be willing to participate on consent to an assessment by Dr. Hy Bloom. Dr. Bloom is an eminently qualified psychiatrist who is also licensed to practise law in Ontario. The Law Society agreed to pay Dr. Bloom’s fee.

[44] The Lawyer offered the name of another psychiatrist. In reply, the Law Society proposed assessment by a third eminently qualified psychiatrist, Dr. Philip Klassen. He has had considerable experience working with residential school survivors.

[45] The Lawyer seemed to feel that it would be ideal to retain both Dr. Bloom and Dr. Klassen given the complex legal issues raised by his case and the aboriginal focus of his practice. The Law Society made it clear that it was not prepared to fund two separate forensic psychiatrists.

[46] The Law Society indicated that while it had initially considered Dr. Bloom’s law degree to be of assistance, the doctor had made it clear that he had not practised as a lawyer for two decades and worked strictly as a psychiatrist.

[47] The Law Society suggests that Mr. Bogue is of the view that Dr. Bloom’s legal training would permit him to provide legal opinions on a range of issues including the many arguments advanced by the Lawyer. This clearly is not Dr. Bloom’s role as a psychiatrist. The Law Society recommends that we appoint Dr. Klassen as sole assessor to avoid any confusions or distractions in this regard. It also notes that Dr. Klassen’s proposed fee is less.

[48] The Lawyer denies that he sees Dr. Bloom’s role as providing legal opinions. Rather, he suggested that this legal training would give Dr. Bloom unique insight. The Lawyer states that he would be agreeable to having Dr. Bloom conduct his assessment. However, he also seems to be suggesting that Dr. Klassen have some unclear future function in this process.

[49] It is evident to us that both Dr. Bloom and Dr. Klassen are highly qualified and very experienced psychiatrists. Both clearly understand their role and function. Either would be able to undertake the required assessment of the Lawyer. Given this, it is not apparent why two doctors would be necessary to complete this task.

[50] Accordingly, it is our decision that Dr. Bloom shall conduct the assessment. If, during the course of that process, Dr. Bloom concludes that he requires the assistance of Dr. Klassen or another expert to complete his assigned functions and the parties are unable to agree, we are prepared to receive a motion in writing outlining the scope and nature of such proposed assistance.

ORDER

[51] We make the following order:

1. Pursuant to s. 39(1) of the Law Society Act, the Lawyer shall be examined by Dr. Hy Bloom for the purpose of determining:

a. whether the Lawyer is or has been incapacitated;

b. the extent of any incapacity and prognosis for recovery; and

c. any other issue that may assist in determining the issues in the application.

2. The Lawyer shall answer Dr. Bloom’s questions and co-operate with the examination process, including participating in any relevant medical or psychological testing as required by Dr. Bloom and providing Dr. Bloom with any requested information from health records or authorization to obtain information from the Lawyer’s health practitioners.

3. The Lawyer shall be examined at Dr. Bloom’s office in Toronto or, at Dr. Bloom’s discretion, at another medical centre or physician’s office in Toronto. The Lawyer must attend for up to three sessions of up to eight hours each.

4. In the event that Dr. Bloom would like to conduct more than three sessions, change the duration or location of the meetings, or consult with or obtain the assistance of another expert, then a motion may be brought in writing before this panel to vary this order, if the parties are unable to agree.

5. A copy of Dr. Bloom’s report shall be provided to the Lawyer and Law Society, following the examination process.

6. No costs are awarded on this motion.