Date: 20060215
Docket: T-2151-05
Citation: 2006 FC 205
Vancouver, British Columbia, Wednesday, the 15th day of February, 2006
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Plaintiff, James Russell Baird, is a self-represented litigant and an inventor who holds Canadian and US patents for a method of disposing of nuclear and toxic materials comprising the placing of waste materials into waste repositories radiating from an access tunnel constructed into a subtending tectonic plate adjacent or as near as possible to a subduction zone. The waste materials descend within the tectonic plate into the mantle of the earth (the "Subduction Waste Disposal Method" or the "Invention").
[2] On December 6, 2005, he served and filed an 18-page closely typed statement of claim naming Her Majesty the Queen ("HMQ") in right of Canada as Defendant, claiming damages of over 30 billion dollars. HMQ now seeks to strike the statement of claim on several grounds namely because it:
1. Does not contain material facts required by Rule 174 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the "Rules") or particulars as required by Rule 181.
2. Discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
[3] The essence of the Plaintiff's complaint is found at paragraph 7 of his statement of claim:
From late 1988 until the end of October 2005,when the accumulated effects of the actions of the Defendant outlined in this Statement of Claim precipitated the destruction of the Plaintiff's economic life, the Plaintiff attempted to implement the Invention and its improvements in Canada as a solution to the Canadian and global problems of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons materials excess to defence needs.
[4] The Plaintiff's claim is framed in several torts. The Federal Crown, through its servants and actions, harmed him:
(a) in breach of "its fiduciary, statutory and/or common law duties to the Plaintiff" in relation to the administration of several federal statutes including the Competition Act;
(b) in breach of "its fiduciary, statutory and common law duties to the Plaintiff"and negligence in the establishment, funding, operation, supervision, maintenance of the Seaborn Panel (which from 1989 to1998 conducted an environmental evaluation of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept) as well as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization ("NWMO") established under the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act of 2002.
(c) as an "abuse of public office in its dealings with the Plaintiff" and by legislating the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act in its own interest.
(d) in breach of the Competition Act in conspiring to limit the provision of nuclear waste disposal services in Canada and in restraining the supply of nuclear waste disposal services unduly.
(e) "through its servants, employees and agents negligent and in breach of its fiduciary, moral, statutory and common law duties of care to deal openly with the Plaintiff, the particulars of which are outlined in paragraphs a to p of paragraph 28 of his statement of claim. Most of this particular relates to matters before the Seaborn panel or the NWMO.
(f) for creeping expropriation;
(g) for undercutting his technology.
[5] The Plaintiff also seeks a number of declarations in relation to his several claims including a declaration that the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act discriminates against the Plaintiff contrary to section 15 of the Charter.
[6] The Plaintiff's claims against the Federal Crown play out on the stage of competing concepts of the disposal of nuclear waste: what the Plaintiff describes as the preferred concept of deep geological disposal in the Canadian Shield described by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ("AECL") and studied by the Seaborn Panel versus the method of his invention - subductive waste disposal which is a process involving the formation of a radioactive waste repository in a subducting tectonic plate where the waste will be absorbed along with the plates sliding beneath another while being reabsorbed in the earth's mantle.
[7] After reading the statement of claim several times and considering the Plaintiff's written representations filed February 3, 2006, I am of the view that the Plaintiff's statement of claim must be struck out without leave to amend but without prejudice to the Plaintiff instituting a new action against the Federal Crown which is much better focussed and complies with the Rules.
[8] Fundamentally, as framed, I am of the view that the Plaintiff's statement of claim lacks material facts and particulars which are necessary to permit the Defendant to plead intelligently in response. A few examples suffice.
[9] First, the Plaintiff's claims span over a 16-year period -- 1989 to 2005. The Plaintiff fails to identify the material facts and particulars supporting his claims or causes of action or to specify a time when the offending activities giving rise to his claims or causes of action took place. It may be that some of these activities are time-barred or res judicata.
[10] Second, the Plaintiff fails to identify any Crown servant who may be responsible for the actions he complains of.
[11] In other words, in my view, the Plaintiff's statement of claim is fatally flawed because he does not tell the Defendant who, when, where, how and what gives rise to the Crown's liability to him. Counsel for HMQ is correct in stating that what the Plaintiff pleads are allegations and conclusions, not the essential facts grounding his claims or causes of action (see Bashi v. Canada, 2004 FC 80, a decision of the late Prothonotary Hargrave).
[12] There is another fundamental reason for striking the statement of claim. This statement of claim is an abuse of process. It contains so many different allegations without specifics, and so many different types of relief, that it would be near impossible for the Court to regulate the trial. (See Prothonotary Hargrave's decision in Mountain Prison (Inmates) v. Canada (1998), 146 F.T.R. 265).
[13] Not having appropriate material facts and particulars, it would not be prudent for the Court to rule on whether it is plain and obvious some of the torts alleged do not disclose reasonable causes of action.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiff's statement of claim be struck without leave to amend but without prejudice to the Plaintiff instituting a new action. Costs to the Defendant.
(Sgd.) "F. Lemieux"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2151-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: LEMIEUX J.
DATED: February15, 2006
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
James Russell Baird ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Vladena Hola FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
n/a ON HIS OWN BEHALF
John H. Sims, QC
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, BC FOR THE DEFENDANT
Email this Content