Docket: T-790-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1367
Ottawa, Ontario, December 9, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JOHN CHARLES
BEIMA
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Defendant
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
This is a motion by the Defendant for an order:
a) striking the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, with costs; or
b) in the alternative, an order:
i)
striking portions of the Statement of Claim; and
ii) extending the time for the Defendant to serve and file its Statement
of Defence until 30 days after the disposition of this motion;
[2]
The Plaintiff, Mr. Beima, is seeking the
following relief in his lawsuit against the Defendant:
a) $750,000,000.00 CAD;
b) the settlement to be tax exempt; and
c) an order preventing Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] from having any
interaction in any way, shape or form with the Plaintiff ever again.
[3]
This motion was heard and considered with the
motion in T-791-15, and there is considerable overlap in the two claims to
which these motions relate.
[4]
Both of Mr. Beima’s claims relate to events
which occurred during, and leading up to, an audit and tax assessment, a
proceeding in the Tax Court of Canada, an appeal to the Federal Court of
Appeal, and an application for a compliance order with this Court. As can be
seen from the relief sought, Mr. Beima is asking the Court to render him immune
from tax laws that apply to all citizens of Canada and to award him a large sum
of money for grievances that arise from his having to deal with CRA. These
aspirations are unrealistic, to say the least, and his pleadings do very little
to explain how any such entitlement could have arisen.
[5]
The Plaintiff wishes to be paid a large sum of
money from the public purse on a tax-free basis and to never again have to deal
with CRA. I am not being critical of the Plaintiff. He is a self-represented
litigant and he has every right to seek relief where it is due and justiciable
in the Federal Court. However, the nature and scope of the extraordinary relief
he seeks suggest he may be acting in a somewhat unrealistic fashion.
[6]
There is an air of unreality and self-righteous
exaggeration about his claims that makes it very difficult to determine whether
Mr. Beima has any legitimate complaint to make or whether he simply wants to
resist tax proceedings with CRA. He accuses “multiple
employees of the Government of Canada” of serious criminal acts. He also
claims that the (former) Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper, and various named
cabinet Ministers are involved in these criminal acts. He also accuses
employees of the Department of Justice and the “Following
Employee of the Tax Court of Canada that is involved is Justice Steven D’Arcy”
and the “Following Employee of the Federal Court of
Appeal that is involved is Justice Wyman Webb.” All of these people –
and more – are being accused in his claim of involvement in
Actively blackmailing/extorting, committing
acts of perjury, endangering the life of a child, subjecting a child to sexual
assault, the violation of the Applicant’s rights, obstructing justice,
malicious prosecution, attorney/judicial misconduct, and/or falsifying legal
documents against or as it pertains to the Applicant.
[7]
The extent to which this claim is nothing more
than a collateral attack on other proceedings (and one that questions the
personal and professional integrity of judges who have not made decisions of
which Mr. Beima approves) can be seen in the following sequence:
48. Paige MacPherson is attempting to use
the application brought by Margret McCabe as a method of discovered for the
proceedings before The Tax Court of Canada.
49. An order from The Tax Court of Canada
has now been appealed to The Federal Court of Appeal. Paige MacPherson has now
committed acts or perjury before the Federal Court of Appeal. Paige MacPherson
has claimed documents have been severed on The Applicant that were never
provided to The Applicant.
50. Paige MacPherson is actively taking
steps to prevent documents from going before the Federal Court of Appeal that
would demonstrate the acts of perjury that Paige MacPherson has committed in
The Tax Court of Canada.
51. Justice Steven D’Arcy, presiding with
The Tax Court of Canada, originally stated he wished to hear the recordings of
the unlawful conduct of the employees of The CRA. In a subsequent hearing
Justice Steven D’Arcy refused to exercise his authority as per The Tax Court of
Canada, and ordered evidence of unlawful conduct be removed from the file.
52. Justice Steven D’Arcy actively took
steps to prevent Paige MacPherson from being criminally investigated for
perjury and other unlawful conduct. Thus obstructing justice.
53. Justice Steven D’Arcy put an order in
place preventing evidence of unlawful conduct from being entered into the
record and brought before The Tax Court of Canada.
54. This demonstrates a potential act of
judicial misconduct. Justice D’Arcy using his authority to cover up the
commission of various crimes of various Federal Employees.
55. This most certainly demonstrates an
inability for Justice D’Arcy to be able to conduct a fair unbiased hearing.
56. Justice Wyman Webb of The Federal Court
of Appeal, refused to allow documents into The Applicant’s current appeal,
which demonstrate perjury to Justice D’Arcy on the part of Paige MacPherson. If
the basis for The Applicant’s appeal is that the order pronounced by Justice
D’Arcy was based on perjury on the part of Paige MacPherson, then it can safely
be concluded that Justice Wyman Webb has just denied The Applicant his right to
appeal and a fair unbiased hearing.
57. Justice Wyman by denying the submission
of documents to demonstrate perjury on the part of Paige MacPherson, Justice
Wyman has actively took steps to protect Paige MacPherson from a criminal
investigation. Thus obstructing justice.
58. Justice Wyman has put an order in place
prevent the very transcript of the proceedings being appealed from. This
transcript contains the acts of perjury of Paige MacPherson from being entered
into evidence at the appeal. How can an appeal be heard or just, when the
transcript of the proceedings being appealed from is not allowed into evidence?
59. Justice Wyman, but preventing the
transcripts from being entered into the proceedings has taken steps to prevent
Paige MacPherson from being investigated. This obstructing justice and
preventing a fair hearing.
60. Justice Wyman pronounced an order with
full knowledge that The Applicant had never been. severed or provided a copy of
any of the submissions made by Paige MacPherson. This is required by law.
61. Paige MacPherson has conducted herself
in the most unprofessional and unlawful manors.
62. Paige MacPherson needs to be reviewed
for malicious prosecution and attorney misconduct.
63. Paige MacPherson has breached public
trust by willfully allowing employees of The CRA to commit numerous crimes.
64. Paige MacPherson has willfully and
knowingly endangered the life of a young boy; which has led to assault and
sexual molestation of that boy. This potentially makes Paige MacPherson an
accessory after the face to the sexual molestation of a young boy.
65. Paige MacPherson, an employee of The
DOJC should be held to a much higher standard of accountability. Multiple
willful acts of perjury have no place in The DOJC.
66. Paige MacPherson has used her position
with The DOJC in order to commit various crimes.
67. Paige MacPherson has used her position
with The DOJC to influence various Justices and taint any and all proceedings.
68. There has been over 9 years of stress
and now damages caused by employees of The CRA, various former and current
cabinet Misters of The Government of Canada, and now employees of The DOJC.
69. The applicant’s son has been physically
assaulted and subject to sexual molestation as a direct result of the above
mentioned people.
70. Not one single employee of The
Government of Canada has ever attempted to resolve this situation. Every step
of the way, they have simply taken the approach to commit acts of
blackmail/extortion in order to “force the applicant to think how they want him
to think”.
71. As of today, there is no one person with
The Federal Government that is attempted or is willing to settle or address
anything that has gone on. Not one. Not even Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The
Prime Minister was contacted in regards to all of this and refused to act.
72. The approach of The Government of Canada
has simply to escalate. Violate the rights of a Canadian citizen and repeat it
over and over. The Government has repeatedly lied. On so many points they can
no longer be counted.
73. It is time the Government of Canada
faces the same level of stress and consequences that reflect the type of action
and conduct that it’s employees have taken towards The Applicant.
74. It is time the Government of Canada be
held accountable for the conduct of the people that are employed by it and/or
ministered that make it up.
75. This is not the first time that
employees of The CRA have gone without accountability or repercussions for
their actions. This department is completely out of control, and needs to be
shut down, investigated, and restructured with accountability put in place.
76. Currently The CRA answers to no one and
is allowed to function without any consequences. The ombudsman’s office is
staffed by former staff of The CRA. It has been my experience that the
ombudsman does little other than to justify or cover up what the employees of
The CRA do.
77. The Government needs to be held
accountable for it’s actions. It is time that happens.
78. The stress these people have put The
Applicant through, the endangering of a child’s life, the sexual molestation of
a child, and the numerous breaches of trusts that has occurred.
79. The stress these people have put on The
Applicant has affected his emotional state, caused a great deal of stress
therefor jeopardizing his health, and caused a great deal of weight gain.
80. The Government of Canada wants to allow
employees to falsify debts, endanger lives, allow sexual assault, commit acts
of perjury, allow the violation of rights, and have employees that are
accountable to no one, then it is time the Government be ready to pay compensation
and retribution for it’s actions.
81. The Government of Canada has allowed it
judicial system and courts to transition to such a low level that Justice’s
feel they can ignore the laws of Canada. Justices are rewards and lawyers for
committing acts or perjury and finding against other litigants and issuing
order based on lies.
82. Justices are refusing to look into
credibility of lawyers making submissions and actively preventing any
consequences for acts of perjury.
83. When a Justice of a Canadian court
willfully and knowingly pronounces an order based on perjured submissions, that
Justice should be investigated for judicial misconduct, and considered guilty
of the very crime the Justice attempted to cover up. For example obstruction of
justice.
84. In Canada because of the slide in
integrity of the various court systems, self-represented litigants are being
discriminated against. If a lawyer makes a statement to a Justice, that
statement is instantly treated as the word of god, and it does not matter what
evidence the self-represented litigant submits.
85. The Canadian Government has allowed
discrimination against self-represented litigants to take place to long enough,
it is time that it is held accountable for this.
[errors in original]
[8]
This is not a Statement of Claim that anyone can
defend or upon which the Court can adjudicate. It is a rant against government
employees, certain members of the judiciary and the Government of Canada by
someone who believes that CRA should be ordered to stop “Having Any Interaction In Any Way Shape Or Form With The
Application Ever Again [sic].” Its primary purpose is to cause
everyone identified as much stress as the Applicant feels he has suffered as a
result of the tax proceedings to which he has been subjected. The references to
various crimes and other forms of misconduct are bald allegations that are
connected to no facts that could possibly justify legal action. The Applicant
wishes this Court to grant him a privilege that no other Canadian enjoys. It is
for this reason that, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court must
take particular care to ensure that Mr. Beima is pursuing legal action that is
justiciable in this Court and that, if he is, he produces pleadings that can be
defended and adjudicated in a fair and efficient way. To allow him to proceed on
the basis of his present Statement of Claim is an invitation to chaos and would
result in a complete waste of public resources.
[9]
The legal basis for claiming this extraordinary
relief is never really made clear in the Statement of Claim. Mr. Beima is obviously
extremely annoyed with CRA, government employees, as well as judges of the Tax
Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. However, as his pleadings
suggest, he has not been able to articulate how this annoyance can be
translated into legal action in the Federal Court.
[10]
In paragraph 2 of his Statement of Claim, Mr.
Beima pleads that:
Multiple employees of The Government of
Canada are actively blackmailing/extorting, committing acts of perjury,
endangered the life of a child, subjected a child to sexual assault, the
violation of The Applicant’s rights, obstructing justice, malicious
prosecution, attorney/judicial misconduct, and/or falsifying legal documents
against it as it pertains to The Applicant.
[11]
In his response to this motion, Mr. Beima has
helpfully attempted to clarify what his claim is all about in legal terms:
I respectfully submit this claim is for
damages as a result of criminal activities, the violation of my rights, the
violation of various potions of Canadian Acts, negligence, malicious actions,
lawyer misconduct, the endangerment of my life, the endangerment of my son’s
life and safety, and more [sic].
[12]
Insufficient facts are pleaded to support any of
these claims, even if they were justiciable in the Federal Court.
[13]
So it would appear Mr. Beima wants the Court to
award him $750,000,000.00 in damages as well as the other relief referred to
above as a result of:
(a) criminal activities, including blackmail, extortion, perjury,
endangering the life of the child, and subjecting a child to sexual assault;
(b) the violation of his rights;
(c) the violation of various potions [sic] of Canadian
Acts;
(d) negligence;
(e) Malicious actions;
(f) lawyer misconduct;
(g) the endangerment of his life;
(h) and more.
[14]
The criminal activities referred to in the
Plaintiff’s response to this motion (para 37) “include
blackmail, extortion, perjury, document fabrication, accessory after the fact
to criminal acts like child molestation, and obstruction of justice.”
[15]
In the hearing before me on September 14, 2015,
Mr. Beima explained that the reason he has commenced his action in the Federal
Court is because the acts and omissions he complains of all involve federal
employees and judges of the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
Therefore, he says it is only right that the Federal Court assume jurisdiction
and deal with his complaints. He equates jurisdiction with any federal
activity. This is mistaken, but understandable in a lay litigant. In addition,
he is mistakenly of the view that the Federal Court is a more senior court than
a provincial superior court, and has come here because he does not want to seek
relief in what he regards as an inferior court.
[16]
The jurisdiction of the Federal Court is set out
by the Supreme Court of Canada in International Terminal Operators Ltd v
Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 at 766 [International Terminal
Operators]:
1. There must be a statutory grant of
jurisdiction by the federal Parliament.
2. There must be an existing body of federal
law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the
statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must
be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act,
1867.
[17]
Mr. Beima has made no attempt to indicate or
argue how any of his claims satisfy the requirements set out in International
Terminal Operators, above.
[18]
Clearly, this Court, although it may have some
exceptional criminal jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal
conduct of the kind described by the Plaintiff. See Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Deputy Commissioner v Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FC 564
at para 38; Letourneau v Clearbrook Iron Works Ltd, 2005 FC 333 at paras
6-9.
[19]
A cause of action for the vicarious liability of
the Crown and for the torts of its servants is created by the Crown
Liability and Proceedings Act, RSC, 1985, c C-50. So, normally speaking,
the Federal Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim but, as the
Statement of Claim makes clear, the acts of Crown servants complained of arise
from other proceedings before other courts so that, in effect, Mr. Beima
appears to be attempting to mount a collateral attack on proceedings that have
taken place, or properly belong, in other courts and amount to an abuse of
process in this Court. Clearly also, if Mr. Beima is seeking damages for
vicarious liability in a tort claim, he has not made out any tort claims.
[20]
As regards his vague allegations of violations of
his rights, and the violation of various portions of Canadian acts, Mr. Beima
has failed to articulate any legal basis for such rights or identified which
statutes he has in mind that would support a cause of action in the Federal
Court.
[21]
If by “malicious
actions,” Mr. Beima means malicious prosecution, this can only be dealt
with in a criminal proceeding; actions related to the collection of taxes
(which is what lies behind this dispute) do not constitute a “prosecution” for
the purpose of the tort of malicious prosecution. See Humby v Canada (Attorney
General), 2009 FC 1238 at paras 29 and 30.
[22]
The lawyer misconduct complained of appears to
relate to the conduct of Ms. Paige MacPherson, legal counsel for CRA. Mr. Beima
has commenced a separate action against Ms. MacPherson in T-791-15. There is no
indication in this claim as to how the conduct of opposing legal counsel in tax
proceedings can give rise to a cause of action, let alone a cause of action
that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain.
[23]
It is entirely unclear what Mr. Beima means by
the endangerment of the life of a child, or subjecting a child to sexual abuse,
or the endangerment of his life but, once again, whatever it means, there is no
way to connect it to any action that can be taken in this Court.
[24]
What Mr. Beima means by “And
more” is entirely unclear. He is simply giving notice that he reserves
the right to make further accusations whenever it suits him.
[25]
It is also clear that the Court has no
jurisdiction to order that any potential award it might make to Mr. Beima be
tax exempt. Any dispute as to the application of the Income Tax Act,
RSC, 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) can only be resolved in the Tax Court of Canada.
Likewise, this Court has no jurisdiction to order the Crown to exempt Mr. Beima
from having to interact with CRA personnel and to exempt him from the
application of the Canada Revenue Agency Act, SC
1999, c 17.
[26]
My review of the Statement of Claim also leads
me to agree with the Defendant on the following matters:
a) Paragraphs 3-19, 33 and 80 (the allegation of “falsified debts”)
should be struck as collateral attacks on tax assessments. No allegation of a
deliberately incorrect assessment can succeed unless the reassessment is first
found to be invalid by the Tax Court of Canada. Likewise, no claim for damages
sought on the basis of an invalid tax assessment can succeed unless the
reassessment is first found to be invalid by the Tax Court of Canada;
b) The allegations of “blackmail” and “extortion” at paragraph 2 should be also be struck as
collateral attacks on tax assessments;
c) Paragraphs 21, 29, 31-33, 35-36, 41-46, 48-60, 67, 81-85 and the
references to “perjury,” “obstructing justice,” “judicial misconduct” and “falsifying
legal documents” throughout the claim must also be struck because they
attack the truth of representations and evidence submitted in other court
proceedings, as well as procedural steps taken and orders made in those
proceedings. They are collateral attacks on those proceedings and are an abuse
of process in this Court; and,
d) Paragraphs 25, 27, 28, 30, and 34 raise complaints regarding Crown
counsel’s handling of litigation involving Mr. Beima. Any claim arising from
such complaints is blocked by the legal principle that, in litigation, opposing
counsel owes no duty of care to the opposing party: Biron v Aviva Insurance
Co, 2014 ONCA 558 at para 6. To hold otherwise would place solicitors in an
untenable conflict between their duty to their client and their need to protect
against their client’s adversary.
[27]
All in all, Mr. Beima has been unable to
identify (and the Court has not been able to discover for itself) any cause of
action in the Statement of Claim that this Court has jurisdiction to hear,
and/or which is not improper for being a collateral attack on other proceedings.
[28]
The Statement of Claim is also replete with
other problems. It fails to plead sufficient facts to support the allegations
that are made; it contains much that is immaterial and redundant as well as
statements that are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, including attacks upon
individual judges with whom the Plaintiff has had dealings. The Court
understands that the Plaintiff is a lay litigant and likely to make mistakes in
his pleadings. Some of them could be remedied with some direction from the Court
and an opportunity for the Plaintiff to amend his claim. However, there is
nothing in the Plaintiff’s submissions, supplemented by my own review of his
pleadings, to suggest that the Plaintiff’s claim for $750,000,000.00 CAD can be
characterized in any way that would be justiciable in this Court, and Mr. Beima
has not explained how his claim could be amended in such a way as to make it
justiciable. Consequently, I see no point in giving the Plaintiff leave to
amend.
[29]
There is no dispute between the parties as to
the general principles that govern the striking of pleadings under Rule 221 of
the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. The test is whether it is
plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. See Hunt
v Carey Canada Inc, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 at 980; Paradis Honey Ltd v Canada
(Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2015 FCA 89 at para 37; Isis
Nation Estates v R, 2013 FC 590 at para 2. It is also clear that a motion
to strike is a tool that should be used with care and the approach should be
generous and err on the side of permitting a novel claim to succeed. See Imperial
Tobacco Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 42. I am also aware that
where pleadings are struck for lack of jurisdiction, the lack of jurisdiction
must be “plain and obvious.” See Kvaickovski Trade v Phoenix Bulk Carriers
Ltd, 2007 FCA 381.
[30]
In my view, the jurisdictional issue is decisive
in this case. It means there is no scintilla of a cause of action that this
Court has the jurisdiction to hear. See Spathing v Canada (Solicitor
General), 2003 FCT 445; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
v Seifert, 2002 FT 859 at para 12.
Email this Content