Courts are for finding resolutions, not inflicting revenge, N.S. judge says

HALIFAX — Courts cannot be used as a tool “to bring a world of hurt” on adversaries, a Nova Scotia judge has declared in the case of a retired lawyer who launched a barrage of legal actions over veterinary treatment given to his dog, Cougie.

“The courts are available for the controlled and restrained resolution of legal disputes. They are not available for litigants who grind out legal proceedings for the purpose of inflicting maximum punishment on their adversaries,” wrote Justice Jamie Campbell of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in a recent ruling.

In the ruling, Campbell ordered that Jack Cram cannot take any new legal actions against several veterinarians, a vet clinic and the provincial veterinarians’ association without court approval. The judge further dismissed various Cram claims against other assorted adversaries.

“Mr. Cram is convinced that he is right. Everyone else is not only wrong but they are involved in a criminal conspiracy to thwart his quest for justice. People are allowed to think that way. They are allowed to rant, rage, and rave about the injustices that they perceive,” said the judge.

“To some extent the legal system can become an open mike for the angry. But when a person crosses over into using multiple legal processes themselves as a cudgel to wreak vengeance on an opponent, the court is obliged to restrain them.” 

SIGA

SIGA and Northern Lights Casino main sponsors of the 31st PAGC Fine Arts Festival

8h ago

Workplace incident

City of Prince Albert pleads guilty to workplace safety violation, handed fines

10h ago

Lighting it up

P.A.'s Zablocki leads Regina to victory on Day 4 at Esso Cup

Apr 24, 2024

The dispute began in June 2015, when Cougie, Cram’s Australian blue heeler, was prescribed medicine by a Bridgewater vet who never examined the dog. Cram alleged the medicine was harmful, and laid a negligence complaint with the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association (NSVMA).

A NSVMA discipline committee rejected the complaint, and Cram appealed to the provincial Supreme Court, levelling a series of allegations in legal motions that drew in several law firms, judges and the prosecution service.

In a July 7 oral ruling released in written form this week, Campbell noted Cram’s bid for judicial review of the vets’ association ruling will be heard in the Supreme Court in September, but his “circus of motions” needed to stop.

“He has issues with and made serious allegations regarding the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, various named and unnamed judges of the Supreme Court, the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court, the Court Administrator, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the person who answers the phone at the office of the DPP, the Nova Scotia Barrister’s Society, the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association, the members of the Complaints Committee of the NSVMA, Nova Veterinary Clinic Ltd., various named veterinarians, and generally all veterinarians in Nova Scotia, and of course, the opposing lawyers,” said Campbell.

“A litigant does not have a right to unrestrained access to the justice system for the purpose of pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with a legitimate cause of action and everything to do with trying to bring a world of hurt down upon other parties through the aggressive abuse of the process itself.”

Cram argued his quest for justice was on behalf of the “unjustifiable suffering” of his dog, but Campbell was skeptical.

“With respect, it is hard to imagine that Cougie much cares who wins which application or motion,” the judge wrote.

In 1994, Cram was convicted of criminal contempt of court by the B.C. Supreme Court for being “intemperate and disrespectful to the presiding judge and to the court in general.” He was fined and temporarily prohibited from practising law.

The Canadian Press