A BC Supreme Court judge has dismissed a petition against the Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICBC) and declared the petitioner, a semi‑retired Smithers businessman, a vexatious litigant over what the court described as repetitive and unsatisfiable records demands.
In a decision released Feb. 23, Justice Ward Branch rejected a petition brought by David Walter Eaglestone and his company, Majestic Forest Management Ltd., against the province’s industry‑funded insurance regulator.
Eaglestone and his company sued the council in December 2024 after a years‑long effort to obtain extensive records about agencies and licensed individuals. Beginning in 2021, he sought access to council records stretching back roughly 20 years.
“Not surprisingly, his lack of personal interest influences the outcome of this petition,” Branch wrote, noting that Eaglestone did not demonstrate a direct, current stake in the information he was trying to obtain.
“It is clear to me that [the council] has made reasonable efforts to satisfy all the petitioner’s repetitive requests. It is clear to me that the petitioner is never going to be satisfied with [the council’s] efforts. This is a case where the court must declare that ‘enough is enough’.”
The petition centered on Eaglestone’s attempts to access historic council files, including pre‑2016 paper records stored off‑site. The court heard that the council migrated to an electronic records system in 2016, using Accela software, but still maintains older records in physical storage.
After three hearing days in September 2024 and a further day in November, Branch found the council had produced substantial material in response to Eaglestone’s requests.
“By the end of the hearing, the exercise turned into a game of documentary ‘whack‑a‑mole’,” the judge wrote. “The petitioner would raise an issue regarding the absence of a particular document or category, and counsel for [the council] would demonstrate that the document or category had already been produced.”
Branch concluded that the council’s efforts were reasonable and that continued demands of the kind brought by Eaglestone were an abuse of process.
As part of the ruling, Branch declared Eaglestone a vexatious litigant in relation to his dealings with the Insurance Council and imposed restrictions on future access requests.
The order restrains Eaglestone from making further requests to inspect records at the council’s offices. He must now seek permission from the court before bringing any new applications for council records.
At the same time, Branch found there were some limited respects in which Eaglestone had valid complaints. The court held that he had been improperly denied physical access to the council’s offices at one stage, that he succeeded in obtaining the council’s agreement to remove certain redactions, and that the regulator provided additional documents after the hearing had begun.
Despite those points, Branch declined to award Eaglestone costs, concluding that the overall conduct of the petition justified the vexatious litigant declaration and the access restrictions imposed.
Eaglestone has previous history with the insurance sector. In 2022, he lost the bulk of a separate claim against Intact Insurance over an accidental shed fire on his property in 2013.
In that case, he sought nearly $600,000 for himself and his company. Justice Nigel Kent described it as a “David vs. Goliath” dispute but ultimately awarded Eaglestone $354 personally and $885.29 to Majestic Forest Management. Kent noted that Intact had admitted its handling of the claims “was not perfect and that some mistakes were made, including breaches of the Insurance Act,” but the court still rejected most of the damages sought.
The latest ruling underscores the court’s willingness to protect statutory bodies from what it views as abusive or repetitive freedom‑of‑information‑style requests, particularly where a petitioner cannot show a direct and current interest.
At the same time, the judgment highlighted the importance for regulators of documenting search efforts, production steps and access decisions, especially where historic or hybrid paper‑electronic records systems are involved.
