BC Dentist Declared Vexatious Litigant in Family Law Case

B9316548187Z-1.1_20150314202542_000_GFTA6A1QO.1-0Hundreds of family law decisions are handed down every month in courts across Canada, but there are always a few family law cases that stand out and gain notoriety for unusual facts, belligerent litigants, or wisecracking judges.

The conduct of a Vernon, British Columbia dentist, Dr. Andrew Hokhold, brings his family law case within that group of cases that gain attention due to the misguided obstinence and retaliatory litigation strategy employed by him in his quest to defeat his wife, Laurie Gerbrandt in their high-conflict divorce case. (Hokhold v. Gerbrandt 2017 BCSC 1249)

The couple lived together for five years and had two children, ages 6 and 9. At their 2012 trial the court ordered joint guardianship of the children, and granted sole custody to Ms. Gerbrandt, but denied her request to move with the children from Vernon to Swift Current Saskatchewan. Dr. Hokhold was found to earn $610,000 annually and ordered to pay $7,900 in monthly child support and $9,000 in spousal support.

Needless to say, the doctor balked at the large payments required of him and in 2014 was found in contempt of court for failure to pay the amounts ordered. Although he successfully appealed the contempt finding, by April of 2017 his support arrears was $448,000.00.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hokhold, who acted for himself, abandoned his appeal of the support orders and turned his attention to corollary tactics, alleging that his former spouse had defamed him, and conspired with Canada Revenue Agency against him. He also commenced two civil actions against Ms. Gerbrandt and her mother, purporting to act as his children’s “litigation guardians”, a status that was never legitimate in the face of his wife’s sole custody order. He alleged that Ms. Gerbrandt and her mother had acted in breach of trust in respect of gold coins held for the children, proceedings that involved multiple court applications and hearings, adjournments, and filings. Dr. Hokhold eventually conceded that he had no authority to sue on behalf of his children and his claims were dismissed.

But he was not done. He then launched four separate appeals of orders related to his gold coin litigation, including an appeal from his unsuccessful application to remove a certain judge from presiding over his cases. By this time, his ex-wife was fed up and she brought an application to have her ex declared a “vexatious” litigant, unable to file further court actions without express permission from a judge.

When the date finally arrived to hear the “vexatious” litigant arguments, he sabotaged the proceedings by seeking an adjournment and filing and delivering thousands of pages of new material to his former wife’s counsel the evening before. Later, he sought a further adjournment by admitting himself to Vernon Jubilee Hospital, where he was promptly released without any prescriptions and drove himself home.

During his opportunity to defend himself against the “vexatious” litigant claims he opted to criticize his 2012 trial judge alleging fraud and fabrication and noted that he had already reported him to the Canadian Judicial Council and the RCMP.

In support of her “vexatious” litigant application Ms. Gerbrandt advised the Court that Dr. Hokhold had filed 98 affidavits, some exceeding 2,500 pages. He had also filed multiple requests to reappear before the Court and on one occasion in 2016 sought 64 separate orders. He also sued counsel for the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program after they began collection proceedings against him and brought actions in defamation, breach of trust, and multiple adjournment applications.

Dr. Hokhold was declared a vexatious litigant, both in the Court of Appeal and the British Columbia Supreme Court based on his predilection for bringing court actions and appeals that either could not succeed or were brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings that did not assert legitimate rights and by failing to pay the costs related to his unsuccessful applications.

Madam Justice Newbury in the Court of Appeal said:

“It is these factors, together with his filings in this court, that lead me to conclude that Dr. Hokhold has been using the judicial process in a manner calculated to divert attention from the real issues outstanding between the parties – his annual income, the amount of support he should pay, and his rights and obligations as a parent. Even Dr. Hokhold admits that he is “tired” as a result of the litigation, and there are more than a few judges who feel the same.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s