BETWEEN:
Plaintiff
and
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] This is an appeal by the Plaintiff from an Order of Prothonotary Roger Lafrenière brought pursuant to Federal Courts Rule 51.
[2] The Order appealed from was issued on April 12, 2006. It struck out the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim without leave to amend and ordered costs of $1000 (inclusive of disbursements) payable to the Defendant.
[3] On this appeal the Plaintiff has asked that the Prothonotary's Order be set aside in part by allowing an amendment to the Statement of Claim within 60 days and by disallowing or reducing the award of costs.
[4] The Defendant acknowledges that I am not bound by the conclusion reached by the Prothonotary and that I can exercise my own discretion in considering the matter on a de novo basis. This approach is endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. [1993] 2 F.C. 425.
[5] The Prothonotary's Order in this case offers the following description of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim:
Even when taking the Statement of Claim as a whole, and reading it liberally, it is clear that the Plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity any of the serious allegations being levelled against the Defendant. In particular, the Plaintiff does not provide the who, the when and the what to support a cause of action in fraud, theft, unlawful interception of communications, or discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter. Moreover, although damages are claimed, the Plaintiff makes no attempt to link his claim for damages to the allegations made against the Defendant. All the pleading discloses are bare allegations without material fact.
In summary, the Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendant, and should be struck out in its entirety without an opportunity for amendment. The pleading either raises grievances about the Plaintiff's tax assessment which are not within this Court's jurisdiction, or it fails to plead the relevant material facts capable of establishing a reasonable cause of action and, where required, the particulars of the facts which might give rise to the reasonable cause of action.
[6] I have reviewed the Statement of Claim independently and I would wholly endorse the Prothonotary's description of it. Although a lay litigant may be entitled to some latitude in drafting pleadings, a Statement of Claim must still disclose a reasonable cause of action and be sufficiently informative and coherent that a defendant can know the case that it must meet. The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim contains a multitude of grievances and general allegations wholly unsupported by material facts. The document contains vague allegations of fraud, bad faith, dishonesty, theft, malice and the disruption and interception of private communications. These complaints are made in the absence of any factual context sufficient to allow the Defendant to respond. The allegations are made not only against the federal Crown but also against the Queen in Right of Ontario and Quebec so that it is not even clear who is the intended defendant.
[7] The Plaintiffs complaints about not being able to effectively contact Revenue Canada by telephone do not constitute a cause of action known to law; and to most citizens such difficulties represent mere annoyances that do not lead to litigation.
[8] When asked during argument whether the allegation about outstanding GST credits formed any part of his claim to relief, the Plaintiff denied it. That aspect of the Statement of Claim is therefore completely un-necessary and superfluous.
[9] The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim in this proceeding contains not a scintilla of a cause of action and was correctly and fairly found by the Prothonotary to be frivolous and vexatious. I would add that it is also scandalous. It is not a document that can or should be saved by extending a right of amendment: see Larden v. Canada (1998) 145 F.T.R. 140.
[10] I can see nothing about the Prothonotary's award of costs that is unreasonable or out of line with awards in similar cases. The Plaintiff must understand that litigation is a serious and expensive process not to be undertaken lightly. The Prothonotary was simply applying the usual rule that costs are awarded in favour of the successful party in an amount which represents a reasonable contribution to the actual costs incurred.
[11] I also do not agree with the Plaintiff's argument that the steps taken by the Defendant in connection with the underlying motion were un-necessary or excessive. To the contrary, those steps were prudent, thorough and of high quality.
[12] Because this appeal covers many of the same issues and arguments advanced before the Prothonotary I will award costs to the Defendant for this appeal in the amount of $750 inclusive of disbursements.
"R. L. Barnes"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
June 27, 2006
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-337-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 26, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Keyvan Nourhaghighi FOR PLAINTIFF
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Keyvan Nourhaghighi FOR PLAINTIFF,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
John H. Sims Q.C.