Baird v. Canada, 2007 FCA 48

Date: 20070118

Docket: A-78-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 48

 

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.              

                        MALONE J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 16, 2007.

Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 18, 2007.

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                   LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                                   EVANS J.A.

                                                                                                                                    MALONE J.A.

 

Date: 20070118

Docket: A-78-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 48

 

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.              

                        MALONE J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD

Appellant

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

 

[1]               I agree with Lemieux J. of the Federal Court that the appellant’s claim of 30 billion dollars in the Federal Court fails to meet the requirements of Rules 174 and 181 of the Federal Courts Rules regarding material facts and particulars of the allegations contained in the claim. As framed, the claim is vague to the point of rendering it impossible for the respondent to make a proper defence.

 

[2]               I need not review all the shortcomings of the claim addressed by the Federal Court judge, except to add that the claim as submitted would make it very difficult, almost impossible, for the Court to conduct and regulate the trial.

 

[3]               The appellant submits that his statement of claim should not have been struck and that he should have been authorized to amend it. I did review the statement of claim. In my view, as drafted, it is beyond redemption and amendments are simply not possible.

 

[4]               The appellant says he is impecunious and submitting a new statement of claim, as authorized by the judge, would be too costly for him. I am convinced that whatever amendments would be made to the statement of claim would compound the difficulty and increase the complexity of the matter. In the end, the amended statement of claim would most likely give rise to a new motion to strike it and costs will be higher than if a new statement had been filed.

 

[5]               In these circumstances, the judge made no error in granting the respondent’s motion to strike the claim.

 

[6]               For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

“Gilles Létourneau”

“I agree.

            John M. Evans, J.A.”

 

“I agree.

            B. Malone, J.A.”

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                      A-78-06

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                      JAMES RUSSELL BAIRD v. HER MAJESTY

                                                                        THE QUEEN

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                Vancouver, British Columbia

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                  January 16, 2007

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:             LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

 

CONCURRED IN BY:                                 EVANS J.A.

                                                                        MALONE J.A.

 

DATED:                                                         January 18, 2007

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

James Russell Baird	FOR THE APPELLANT
Marja K. Bulmer	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT