Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Estate administration dispute arising from a $20,000 specific bequest to Eric Bernard Emmanuel Massot and his sustained refusal to accept payment on standard estate terms.

• Pattern of meritless and repetitive civil actions by the Plaintiff against Mark and Elizabeth Shewchuk and their lawyer, Daniel B. Hutchinson, stemming from the same estate and property issues.

• Prior probate and civil proceedings, including the First Action, dismissed with costs and enforcement orders, evidencing ongoing misuse of the court process.

• Statutory application under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act for a vexatious litigant order based on habitual, persistent, and groundless proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

• Judicial finding that allegations of “collusion” and breach of trust against the Defendants and their counsel were unfounded, effectively amounting to baseless accusations of fraud and dishonesty.

• Final orders declaring the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (with leave required for any future claims against the Defendants and related parties) and awarding quantified special costs of $14,601.81 to the Defendants.

Facts and procedural background
William Welsh owned a property in Cherryville, British Columbia, and left a will dated November 4, 2019. In that will, he named his friend, the Plaintiff, Eric Bernard Emmanuel Massot, as recipient of a $20,000 specific bequest, while appointing Mark Shewchuk as executor (with Elizabeth Shewchuk as alternate) and leaving the residue of the estate to the Shewchuks. The Deceased died on March 23, 2021, and probate was granted to Mark Shewchuk in July 2021. The estate’s main real property was later transferred to the Shewchuks as joint tenants. Despite being gifted the $20,000 bequest, the Plaintiff refused to accept the funds on the ordinary terms. He declined to sign release and consent forms, returned cheques marked “void,” and insisted the money be paid into court while at the same time refusing to sign the necessary consent documentation. This led the executor, advised by Daniel Hutchinson as solicitor, to seek the court’s directions. In January 2025, the court ordered that the bequest be paid into court, less special costs of $6,747.05, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s attempt to challenge the estate accounts and dispositions on the basis that he had no standing and the challenge period had expired.

Earlier civil actions and costs history
The Plaintiff initially sued Mark and Elizabeth Shewchuk in the First Action (Vernon Registry) in May 2022, seeking relief related mainly to use and occupation of the land, access, and fencing structures. The Defendants responded, sought documentary disclosure, and successfully obtained an order compelling the Plaintiff to provide a list of documents. The Plaintiff reacted by rejecting the court’s authority over him due to perceived technical defects, including misspelling of his name, and continued to refuse to comply. Further orders were made against him, including damages of $500 for trespass and injunctive relief restraining him from approaching the Shewchuks, their property, their law firm, and related locations. Ultimately, the First Action was dismissed by the court in 2023, with costs ordered against the Plaintiff. Those costs were later taxed at $10,019.42 and enforced through a subpoena to debtor hearing, resulting in a payment order of $11,220.42 in instalments. The Plaintiff then started a Second Action in late 2023 in the Kamloops Registry, naming the Shewchuks and their lawyer, Mr. Hutchinson, but discontinued it shortly after the Defendants filed their response. On the same day he discontinued the Second Action, he commenced the present Third Action, again suing the Shewchuks and Mr. Hutchinson and repeating allegations of breach of trust and “collusion” regarding the transfer of the estate property and the handling of the bequest.

Vexatious litigant application and legal analysis
In the Third Action, the Plaintiff’s pleading asserted that Mr. Hutchinson had failed in his duties as a barrister and had colluded with Mark and Elizabeth Shewchuk to fraudulently enable transfer of the property, and that the Shewchuks had breached trust owed to the Deceased and to the Plaintiff. The Defendants filed a response to civil claim and a counterclaim, and when the Plaintiff later filed a notice of discontinuance, they maintained their counterclaim seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and an award of special costs. They proceeded by application under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, which allows the court to restrict a person from starting proceedings without leave if that person has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings. The court reviewed the history: the dismissed First Action, the short-lived Second Action, and the Third Action, all built around essentially the same complaints despite earlier determinations; the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with court orders; and his pattern of launching or continuing claims with no objectively reasonable basis. Applying the established factors for vexatious proceedings, the court found that the Plaintiff’s litigation conduct fit the typical pattern of vexatious litigation, including recycling issues, ignoring adverse decisions, and using proceedings to harass rather than to vindicate genuine legal rights.

Findings on conduct, allegations, and special costs
The court held that the Plaintiff’s repeated accusations of collusion and breach of trust against Mark and Elizabeth Shewchuk and Daniel Hutchinson were entirely unfounded and amounted, in substance, to allegations of fraud or dishonesty without evidentiary support. There was no evidence that the executors or their lawyer had acted improperly; instead, their conduct in administering the estate, obtaining probate, transferring the property in accordance with the will, and attempting multiple times to pay the bequest was found to be in accordance with the law and professional obligations. The court emphasized that serious allegations of fraud or collusion against counsel can undermine solicitor–client relationships and create needless conflict and expense, and that such allegations, when baseless, constitute reprehensible conduct warranting sanction. Relying on the court’s inherent jurisdiction and the Supreme Court Civil Rules on special costs, the court concluded that the Plaintiff’s behaviour—misuse of the court process, refusal to honour prior rulings, and false attacks on integrity—justified an award of special costs in favour of the Defendants.

Ruling and overall outcome
The court granted the Defendants’ application to have the Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act. As a result, the Plaintiff, Eric Bernard Emmanuel Massot, is prohibited from commencing any further proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, under any name, against Mark Daniel Shewchuk, Elizabeth Ann Shewchuk, Daniel B. Hutchinson, the estate of William Welsh, or any lawyer who represented those parties, unless he first obtains leave of a justice of the court. The court also ordered that the Plaintiff pay special costs to the Defendants totalling $14,601.81, which includes $10,601.81 incurred in connection with the Third Action and an additional $4,000 for the October 9, 2025 hearing. In summary, the Defendants—Mark and Elizabeth Shewchuk and Daniel B. Hutchinson—were fully successful both in securing protection from further abusive litigation and in obtaining a quantified special costs award of $14,601.81 in their favour.