Date: 20120213
Docket: A-232-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 49
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ZOLTAN
ANDREW SIMON
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Edmonton,
Alberta, on February 13, 2012.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on February 13, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: TRUDEL
J.A.
Date: 20120213
Docket: A-232-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 49
CORAM: SHARLOW J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ZOLTAN ANDREW SIMON
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on February
13, 2012)
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
This is an
appeal from a decision of the Federal Court [2011 FC 582] by which the
respondent’s motion to strike Mr. Simon’s amended statement of claim was
granted without leave to amend on the basis that it suffered from all kinds of
procedural defects but, most importantly, that it failed to reveal any cause of
action.
[2]
This
amended statement of claim constituted Mr. Simon’s second attempt to bring an
action to the Federal Court seeking various remedies and declarations. Indeed,
Mr. Simon’s original statement of claim was previously struck by the Federal
Court by order of June 8, 2010 [2010 FC 617]. On appeal, this order was varied
granting Mr. Simon leave to file an amended statement of claim or,
alternatively, to seek an extension of time to file an application for judicial
review. Mr. Simon chose to file the amended statement of claim which is the
focus of this appeal.
[3]
Despite
the numerous conclusions sought by Mr. Simon in his memorandum of fact and law
and his attempt to raise a constitutional question with respect to subsection
145(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
(see Notice of Constitutional Question filed on record on October 14, 2011),
the only relevant question on appeal is whether the Federal Court Judge (the
Judge) erred in principle or otherwise when she struck Mr. Simon’s amended
statement of claim without leave to amend. We are all of the view that this
appeal must fail.
[4]
The Judge
carefully applied herself to discern any cause of action in the amended
statement of claim over which the Federal Court could have jurisdiction, but to
no avail. She found it “lengthy and incomprehensible”; noting that in pith and
substance, Mr. Simon’s complaint is his liability to the government of British
Columbia (B.C.) for welfare insurance benefits received by his first wife whom
he sponsored upon her entering Canada in 1999 (reasons for judgment, at
paragraph 11). Mr. Simon alleged that in 2008 and 2009, B.C. garnished funds
standing to his credit in his tax account with Revenue Canada.
[5]
While Mr.
Simon’s amended statement of claim attempts to focus on the Canada Revenue
Agency’s role (CRA) in the collection of the debt claimed by B.C., there can be
no doubt that B.C.’s assertion of a debt claim against Mr. Simon is at the root
of his legal difficulties.
[6]
This being
said, the Judge did turn her mind more particularly to the previous decision of
this Court where it was suggested that Mr. Simon might have a claim or grounds
to bring an application for judicial review against the CRA for the treatment
of the appellant’s monies. The Judge once again concluded that it was “plain
and obvious…that the Amended Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable
cause of action against the [Federal Crown] in respect of the actions of the
CRA” (ibidem, at paragraph 14).
[7]
Having
also carefully examined the amended statement of claim and having had the
benefit of Mr. Simon’s oral arguments, we agree with the Judge. The appellant’s
pleadings are definitely deficient in factual material and particulars. Here,
Mr. Simon argues that any sponsorship agreement he entered into was akin to a
gentleman’s agreement and not a binding contract susceptible to give rise to a
debt owed to B.C. If he is wrong, he argues that his signature on the agreement
is null and void. It ensues that Mr. Simon has no debt susceptible of being
collected by B.C. through alleged garnishment of his monies.
[8]
Once
again, this ground of complaint concerns B.C. In any event, even if Mr. Simon
was right that the CRA had no legislative authority to answer B.C.’s request,
these general allegations by the appellant do not fulfill the principal
functions of pleadings: clear definition of the issues between litigants and
fair and proper notice of the case which has to be met by the opposing party.
[9]
Mr. Simon
has again provided a factual narrative. However there is no cause of action to
support the relief he seeks and no cause of action can be found in the
scattered references he makes to various pieces of legislation of doubtful
relevance to the remedies he is seeking.
[10]
As a result,
Mr. Simon has failed to persuade us that the Judge erred in finding that the
amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
[11]
Therefore,
the appeal will be dismissed with costs fixed at $500, inclusive of
disbursements.
"Johanne Trudel"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-232-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: Zoltan
Andrew Simon v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: February 13, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BY: (SHARLOW, DAWSON,
TRUDEL JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: TRUDEL J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Zoltan Andrew Simon
|
ON
HIS OWN BEHALF
|
|
Wendy Bridges
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content