Docket: A-301-23
Citation: 2026 FCA 86
|
CORAM:
|
LEBLANC J.A.
GOYETTE J.A.
PAMEL J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
XIN WANG
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 6, 2026).
PAMEL J.A.
[1] Mr. Wang appeals the Federal Court’s decision dated October 12, 2023 (per Lafrenière J.) striking his statement of claim in its entirety, without leave to amend. Mr. Wang makes a series of assertions relating to a group of six unidentified RCMP members, and not the RCMP as a whole, who are purportedly colluding with unnamed attackers and the Chinese Communist Party which has infiltrated the RCMP to suppress and kill him. Mr. Wang claims to be under 24-hour ultrasound radiation attacks with sonic canons installed around his house by the attackers, and that he is now forced to wear home-made protection gear and sleep in an ultrasound shielding box.
[2] In a detailed and complete set of reasons, the motions judge found Mr. Wang’s allegations to be, amongst other things, tantamount to incoherent conjecture and replete with bald declarations, incomprehensible statements, and vague and inconsistent allegations of misconduct on the part of the unidentified members of the RCMP. The motions judge determined that the allegations were not founded on any material facts, were frivolous and vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action (Rules 221(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106). The motions judge also found that the statement of claim’s deficiencies could not be cured through any amendments.
[3] Decisions made on motions to strike are discretionary in nature and subject to the appellate standard of review (Democracy Watch v. Canada (Prime Minister), 2023 FCA 41 at para 11). They can only be set aside if the motions judge committed an error of law or a palpable and overriding error in applying the law to the facts.
[4] Before us, Mr. Wang contends that the motions judge committed several errors. He argues that the decision involved selective cherry-picking of the allegations, as well as illogical and incoherent reasoning. Mr. Wang also asserts that the motions judge wrongly concluded that Rule 221 did not apply to his motion. Additionally, he claims that the judge erred in determining that there was no police misconduct. He further contends that the judge lacked the expertise to assess the impact of the radiation attacks he endures daily. Moreover, Mr. Wang insists that his claim was not frivolous or vexatious, as it was motivated by a genuine desire for self-protection. Finally, he argues that his proposed amendment should have been permitted, limited to the events of June 2021, when he was unlawfully detained and his car was impounded based on false allegations of mental disorder.
[5] We disagree with Mr. Wang, as he has not pointed to any reversible error on the part of the motions judge.
[6] The motions judge correctly instructed himself on the law on motions to strike, including Rule 221; he engaged in a holistic and practical examination of pleadings so as to gain a realistic appreciation of its essential character before coming to the conclusion that it was plain and obvious that the statement of claim had no reasonable prospect of success (Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Pasqua First Nation, 2026 FCA 83, at para. 3). In particular, the motions judge determined that the statement of claim provided no factual foundation for the unconnected allegations being made by Mr. Wang, leaving both the respondent and the Court to speculate as to the circumstances alleged to ground the claims against the members of the RMCP.
[7] Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Wang, at no point did the motions judge determine that Rule 221 did not apply to the motion before him, quite the contrary, or that there was no evidence of police misconduct in this case. What the motions judge found was that Mr. Wang failed to plead material facts that could support a recognized cause of action. Moreover, the level of expertise the motions judge may or may not have had in relation to the impact of the radiation attacks on Mr. Wang is of no moment, as is the fact that in presenting his claim, Mr. Wang was motivated by a genuine desire for self-protection.
[8] As regards the motions judge’s finding that no amendment would be sufficient to cure the radical deficiencies in the pleadings, we see no reason to interfere with such a finding. Having heard Mr. Wang and considered his arguments, we have not been convinced of any palpable and overriding error in relation to the motions judge’s determinations. As such, the appeal will be dismissed, with costs in the amount of $500.00, all inclusive.
"Peter G. Pamel"
Email this Content