Date: 19991108
Docket: A-563-96
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1999
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGMENT
This appeal is dismissed with costs in the amount of $500 as suggested by the respondent.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
Date: 19991108
Docket: A-563-96
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Friday, October 22, 1999.
Judgment rendered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Monday, November 8, 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: McDONALD J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
Date: 19991108
Docket: A-563-96
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DESJARDINS J.A.
This is an appeal from a decision of the motions judge striking out two statements of claim and consequently two actions filed by the appellant. The motion was brought by the respondent pursuant to former rule 419(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, which corresponds with rule 221(1)(a) of the present rules. By the same token, the motions judge dismissed a motion filed by the appellant under former rule 402(2)(a)(i), now rule 204.
Former rule 419 reads:
Rule 419. (1) The Court may at any stage of an action order any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is immaterial or redundant,
(c) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) it constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly.
(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under paragraph (1)(a).
The actions are against Her Majesty the Queen in each case. They are among numerous actions commenced in the Ontario Courts and in the Trial Division of this Court in recent years.
The motions judge noted:[1]
Each of the statements of claim is lengthy, (in file T-2611-95 it is 40 pages, letter size, including pages 28 to 38 which appear to be documents relating to other actions or hearings initiated in other actions in the Ontario courts, and in file T-2464-95 it is 14 pages, legal size, including as page 7 a copy of a letter from the plaintiff to the Prime Minister of England). Yet neither statement discloses a reasonable cause of action that may be tried in this Court, even assuming the few facts that are pleaded were true and can be established by evidence.
Each of the statements of claim omits any clear statement of the relief which the plaintiff claims. Such a statement, setting out relief sought, is included in the Memoranda of Law and Argument submitted in writing for both actions by the plaintiff, but it is the pleadings, in particular the Statement of Claim, which must set out the framework for the action, including the relief sought. Without a statement of the relief sought in the Statements of Claim, the Court has no basis on which to consider the grant of relief.
The motions judge was satisfied that each statement of claim did not meet the standard of former rule 408(1), (now rule 174), which required that:
Rule 408.(1) Every pleading must contain a precise statement of the material facts on which the party pleading relies.
He said:[2]
Instead, the many paragraphs of the respective statements of claim (46 in T-2464-95 and 56 in T-2611-95) recite allegations and wrongdoings, criminal and civil, in terms of conclusions, without any facts pleaded. Both statements of claim are in terms not appropriate for court pleadings. They are intemperate and scurrilous in tone and accusatory in terms of wrongs alleged, with no stated facts underlying the allegations, against Her Majesty, and many of her ministers, judges, court and other officials. While I respect the plaintiff and his right to think, speak and write as he pleases, in my opinion the terms used in his pleadings are not at all suitable for any Court proceedings, and his motions are scandalous, vexatious and frivolous in the sense of those terms within Rule 419(1)(c).
The appellant claimed in his motion that since the Crown had not filed its defence, in accord with former rule 402(2)(a)(i),[3] he was entitled to default judgment in both actions.
The motions judge rejected his submission since he was of the view that this could only be if the statements of claim had set out clearly the material facts which supported the claims within the Court's jurisdiction. Since the conditions were not met by the appellant, he felt there was no obligation on the respondent to respond.
In his memorandum and in his oral pleading on appeal, the appellant referred to a series of "faults" and "conspiracies" perpetrated against him by the Crown as well as several persons and parties including fifty-seven members of the judiciary.
The appellant accepts as applicable the test formulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc.,[4] where a motion to strike had been filed in British Columbia following an action based solely on allegations of conspiracy. After an extensive history of the law in this matter, both in England and in Canada, Madam Justice Wilson, for the Court, concluded:[5]
Thus, the test in Canada governing the application of provisions like Rule 19(24)(a) of the British Columbia Rules of Court is the same as the one that governs an application under R.S.C. O. 18, r. 19: assuming that the facts as stated in the statement of claim can be proved, is it "plain and obvious" that the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action? [...]
[My emphasis]
She continued:[6]
The question therefore to which we must now turn in this appeal is whether it is "plain and obvious" that the plaintiff's claims in the tort of conspiracy disclose no reasonable cause of action or whether the plaintiff has presented a case that is "fit to be tried", even although it may call for a complex or novel application of the tort of conspiracy.
The motions judge was of the view that the statements of claim revealed no "reasonable cause of action", and that they were clearly "vexatious" within the meaning of former rule 419(1)(c).
I have not been persuaded that the motions judge, in exercising his discretion under former rule 419, proceeded on a wrong principle or that he failed to give sufficient weight to all relevant considerations or erred in appreciating the nature of the pleadings before him.[7]
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $500 as suggested by the respondent.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
"I agree
F. Joseph McDonald, J.A."
"I agree
J. Edgar Sexton, J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-563-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 22, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (DESJARDINS J.A., McDONALD J.A. and SEXTON J.A.)
DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Keyvan Nourhaghighi The Appellant
on his own behalf
Sean O'Donnell For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent
[0] Former rule 402(2)(a)(i) read:
[...]
(2) A defence shall be filed
(a) within
(i) 30 days after service of the statement of claim, if the defendant is served within Canada
[4] [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959.
[5] [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 at 980.
[6] [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 at 980.
[7] Reza v. Canada, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394 at 404; Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco Brands Ltd. (1985), 62 N.R. 364 at 365 per Urie J.A. (F.C.A.).