Date: 20110513
Docket: T-1981-09
Citation: 2011
FC 551
Vancouver, British
Columbia, May 13, 2011
PRESENT: Roger R. Lafrenière, Esquire
Case
Management Judge
BETWEEN:
|
|
DENIS BRUNET
|
|
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
|
CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
|
|
|
|
Defendant
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Orders of
the Court are meant to be respected, and complied with. Further, directions
issued by the Court should not be treated lightly. A party that ignores orders
or directions of the Court does so at its own peril.
[2]
By
way of background, the Plaintiff filed his Statement of Claim on November 26,
2009. The pleading alleges that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) breached an
agreement that would allow the Plaintiff to make monthly payments of $500.00
pending submissions of tax returns by H&R Block. According to the
Plaintiff, the CRA breached the agreement by withdrawing $34,283.90 from his
assets. In his prayer for relief, the Plaintiff seeks an order for the return
of the monies withdrawn by the CRA, resumption of the monthly payments of
$500.00, and damages in the amount of $5000.00. On January 7, 2010, the
Defendant filed a Statement of Defence denying each and every allegation made
in the Statement of Claim.
[3]
Upon
360 days having elapsed since the issuance of the Statement of Claim and no
requisition for a pre-trial conference having been filed, the Chief Justice
issued an Order on January 31, 2011, designating the action as a specially
managed proceeding. The Plaintiff was ordered to serve and file a proposed
timetable for the completion of the steps necessary to advance the proceeding
in an expeditious manner within 20 days.
[4]
There
is no record of any proposed timetable being filed by the Plaintiff in response
to the Order of the Chief Justice dated January 31, 2011. The Plaintiff
submitted instead a letter addressed to my attention dated February 14, 2011
(without any subject line or court file number) which reads as follows:
As per the attached, I am awaiting for a court appointment
at end of February beginning of March.
I am requesting you recuse yourself from these proceedings
due to the past decisions.
[5]
On
February 25, 2011, the following Directions were issued to the parties:
By letter dated February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff states that
he is awaiting a “court appointment”. He also requests that I recuse myself
from the proceedings “due to past decisions”. There is no record of any court
appointment being requisitioned by either party in this file. In addition, the
Plaintiff has failed to serve and file a proposed timetable within 20 days
as required by the Order of the Chief Justice dated January 31, 2011. The
Plaintiff is directed to either comply with the Order of the Chief Justice
dated January 31, 2011 or requisition a case management conference no later
than March 15, 2011, failing which a status review will be conducted
pursuant to Rule 385(2) of the Federal Courts Rules. Any requisition for
a case management conference shall be made by letter and include an agenda for
the case management conference, the position of the parties regarding each
agenda item, the estimated duration of the conference, and mutual dates of
availability and contact information of the Plaintiff and counsel for the
Defendant. The Plaintiff’s request for recusal is denied.
[6]
The Plaintiff did not
comply with the Court’s Directions and simply repeated his request that I
recuse myself from this file. No evidence of bias has been offered in support
of the recusal request.
[7]
By
Order dated March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff was required to show cause by
April 18, 2011 why the action should not be dismissed for delay (Show Cause
Order). A certified copy of the Show Cause Order was sent to the Plaintiff
by ordinary mail at the Plaintiff’s address for service in Surrey, British
Columbia,
as reflected in the Statement of Claim. A certified copy of the Order was also
forwarded to the Plaintiff, along with a similar Order issued in Court File No.
T-2138-09, to a Vancouver address that had been provided by the Plaintiff
in T-2138-09.
[8]
The
envelope addressed to the Plaintiff’s Surrey address was returned to the
Registry unopened bearing the following notation: “Moved, has left no forwarding
address”. It appears, however, that the Show Cause Order issued in this
proceeding was received by the Plaintiff at his Vancouver address since he returned
the certified copy of the show cause Order in T-2138-09 to the Registry with
the following notation: “As per attached, I have requested many times !! a case
management conference but to no avail.”
[9]
There
is no record of any written representations being filed by the Plaintiff in
response to the Show Cause Order.
[10]
The
fact that the Plaintiff is self-represented does not give him any additional
rights or special dispensation because of his lack of knowledge or legal skill.
As Mr. Justice James Hugessen stated in Eric Scheuneman v Her Majesty the
Queen, 2003 FCT 37, “if [a party] insists upon representing himself, he
must play by the same rules as everyone else.”
[11]
In
any event, the Order of the Chief Justice dated January 31, 2011 was
unambiguous. There is no indication that the Plaintiff misunderstood what was
required of him. Rather, it appears that he consciously chose to ignore the
Order without regard for the potential consequences.
[12]
Court
Orders are mandatory and are not mere suggestions of the Court. If litigants
were able to get away with such cavalier disregard of a court order, the
objective of case management, and indeed the orderly administration of justice
as a whole, would be seriously undermined.
[13]
The
Plaintiff has failed to take any concrete steps to move the proceeding forward
for well over one year. He has also repeatedly refused to comply with
decisions of this Court without valid excuse. In addition, he has
obstinately refused to copy the Defendant’s solicitor of record with
correspondence addressed to the Court. Finally, there is no indication that the
Plaintiff would be prepared to abide with any decision made by this Court in
the event the action is allowed to continue.
[14]
I
recognize that the draconian remedy of dismissal of an action should be invoked
only as a last resort. However, the Plaintiff’s tenacious unwillingness to
yield to the Court’s authority cannot be tolerated or condoned.
[15]
In
the circumstances, I conclude that the action should be dismissed.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the action is dismissed.
“Roger
R. Lafrenière”
Email this Content