Spears-Haugen v. Canada, docket T-897-00

Date: 20000711

Docket: T-897-00

Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday the 11^th day of July, 2000

PRESENT:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Gibson

BETWEEN:

PATRICIA ANNE SPEARS-HAUGEN

Plaintiff

- and -

THE MAJESTY THE QUEEN

"IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA"

Defendant

     ORDER

     UPON motion, dated the 14^th day of June, 2000 on behalf of the Defendant, for:

1. 1.      An Order to strike the Statement of Claim ("Claim") and to dismiss this action, with costs; and
   

3. .      Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.

AND UPON motion, filed the 5th day of July, 2000 on behalf of the Plaintiff, for:

5. .      An Order to dismiss the motion of the MAJESTY THE QUEEN "IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA".
   
6. .      An Order to set down to trial.
   
7. .      An Order transferring the cases of the Superior Court File Numbers:      52613/99.

98942/99.

63356/95, / 7957.

55641/00.

8. .      An Order allowing the Defendants of those cases to attend a court appearance for direction.
   
9. .      A recommendation to the Director of Land Titles to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of the matrimonial home.
   

6.      Any other graces or Orders applicable.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.      The Defendant"s motion is granted.

2.      The Plaintiff"s statement of claim herein is struck out without leave to amend and this action is, accordingly, dismissed.

3.      The Plaintiff"s cross-motion, to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the Defendant"s motion, is itself dismissed. In all other respects, the Plaintiff"s motion is moot.

4.      No Order as to costs.

                                 "Frederick E. Gibson"

     J.F.C.C.

Date: 20000711

Docket: T-897-00

BETWEEN:

     PATRICIA ANNE SPEARS-HAUGEN

     Plaintiff

     - and -

     THE MAJESTY THE QUEEN "IN RIGHT OF CANADA"

     Defendant

     REASONS FOR ORDER

GIBSON J.

By notice of motion heard before me at Toronto on the 10^thof July, 2000, the defendant sought an order to strike the statement of claim in this action and to dismiss the action with costs.

The grounds cited on behalf of the defendant are those set out in paragraphs 221(1)(a) to (c) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998¹, that is to say, that the plaintiff"s statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is immaterial or redundant and is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Further, in the alternative, counsel for the defendant urges that the actions complained of in the statement of claim are not within the jurisdiction of this Court and bear no relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the Government of Canada.

By what might reasonably be considered to be a cross-motion, the plaintiff sought an order dismissing the defendant"s motion, setting her action down for trial, transferring certain matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to this Court, allowing the defendants in those matters to attend before this Court for directions and a recommendation to the Director of Land Titles, presumably for the province of Ontario, to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of her matrimonial home.

The plaintiff was self-represented before the Court. I adopt the words of Madame Justice Reed in Tench v. Canada²where she wrote at paragraph 8:

The plaintiff is self-represented and in such cases, the Court allows considerable latitude when assessing pleadings.

Further, on these motions, the Court allowed the self-represented plaintiff considerable latitude in her representations to the Court most of which, I regret to say, were irrelevant to the issues before the Court.

In Sim v. Canada³, Prothonotary Hargrave concluded his reasons relating to an application to strike out a statement of claim in the following terms:

A statement of claim should be a readable narrative, so at the conclusion both the defendant and the Court may understand the plaintiff"s claim. This particular ... statement of claim is disjointed. It contains much that is unintelligible and jargon. It is a claim which is not founded on any reasonable cause of action. It is vexatious and frivolous. The pleading is embarrassing to the defendant. Overall, it is an abuse of process.

            

The Court of Appeal recently remarked, albeit in a slightly different context, that"courts are public institutions for the resolution of disputes and cost substantial public money. Court congestion and delay is a serious public concern."... That proposition was subsequently endorsed by the Chief Justice .... Litigants, and that includes lay litigants, who bring actions which are forlorn and doomed, cannot expect the luxury of being allowed to continue proceedings of which nothing can come. To allow this action to proceed would not only be an abuse of the process of the court, but also an abuse of the taxpayer. ... [citations omitted]

Much the same could be said here although the statement of claim in this matter might more accurately be described as prolix and unintelligible, disclosing no reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court, rather than as disjointed or as containing much that is unintelligible and jargon. Further, I am in the agreement with the submission of counsel for the defendant that the statement of claim herein is beyond redemption through amendment.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant"s application to strike the statement of claim will be granted. The statement of claim will be struck out without leave to amend and this action will be dismissed. Despite the request on behalf of the defendant for costs, there will be no order as to costs.

In light of my decision with respect to the defendant"s motion, the plaintiff"s cross-motion, to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of the defendant"s motion, will itself be dismissed. In all other respects, it is now moot.

                                 "Frederick E. Gibson"

     J.F.C.C.

Toronto, Ontario

July 11, 2000

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      T-897-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  PATRICIA ANNE SPEARS-HAUGEN

     Plaintiff

                         - and -

THE MAJESTY THE QUEEN "IN RIGHT OF CANADA"

     Defendant

                

DATE OF HEARING:              MONDAY, JULY 10, 2000

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:          GIBSON J.

                        

DATED:                      TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2000

APPEARANCES:                  Ms. Patricia Anne Spears-Haugen

The Plaintiff on Her Own Behalf

                         Ms. Lara Speirs

            

For the Defendant

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Patricia Anne Spears-Haugen

441 Elmwood Avenue

                         Apartment 207                                      Richmond Hill, Ontario

L4C 1M5

For the Plaintiff

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                        

For the Defendant

                         FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 20000711

                        

         Docket: T-897-00

                         BETWEEN:

PATRICIA ANNE SPEARS-HAUGEN

     Plaintiff

    

- and -

THE MAJESTY THE QUEEN "IN RIGHT OF CANADA"

     Defendant

                    

                        

            

REASONS FOR ORDER

                        

__________________

     ¹      S.O.R./98-106.

     ²      [1999] F.C.J. No. 1152-(Q.L.), (F.C.T.D.).

     ³      (1995), 98 F.T.R. 92.