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
|