Teitelbaum,
J.:—
On
March
1,
1993,
the
plaintiff,
Ruth
Giagnocavo,
filed
in
the
Federal
Court
Registry
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
a
notice
of
motion
"for
an
order
allowing
appeal
from
associate
senior
prothonotary
Giles’
order
of
February
15,
1993
to
allow
John
Giagnocavo
to
speak
and
to
represent
the
applicant
(plaintiff)
Ruth
Giagnocavo
in
this
instant
case,
and
for
an
order
allowing
the
appeal".
The
grounds
of
the
appeal,
as
stated
in
the
notice
of
motion
are:
1.
John
Giagnocavo
has
an
inherent
right
to
represent
the
interests
of
his
wife
as
agent
in
the
case
at
hand.
2.
John
Giagnocavo
is
the
husband
of
Ruth
Giagnocavo
and
they
have
been
married
for
over
40
years
and
have
had
7
children.
The
Ontario
Court
has
upheld
John
Giagnocavo's
right
to
represent
family
members
before
a
three-man
court.
3.
Ruth
Giagnocavo
feels
very
comfortable
with
John
Giagnocavo
representing
her
in
this
case,
as
he
has
a
strong
conviction
that
the
Income
Tax
Act
is
unconstitutional
and
discriminatory
and
contravenes
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
in
a
multitude
of
sections,
and
he
has
a
strong
conviction
that
the
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
must
be
upheld
as
the
supreme
law
of
the
land.
4.
The
Crown
has
come
to
the
Court
with
unclean
hands
in
trying
to
frustrate
proceedings.
To
have
a
fair
hearing
on
the
challenge
of
the
constitutional
questions
involved
in
that
the
Crown
filed
a
false
affidavit,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
and
marked
Exhibit
A-1.
Ruth
Giagnocavo
never
authorized
any
attorney
to
represent
her
in
these
cases.
Paul
Parlee
is
an
agent
of
the
Crown,
and
has
been
representing
the
Crown
in
proceedings
against
John
and
Ruth
Giagnocavo.
Ruth
Giagnocavo
hereby
certifies
that
she
had
never
authorized
any
attorneys
to
represent
her.
5.
Mr.
Giles
misinterpreted
Rule
300.1
in
that
the
rule
does
not
prevent
a
husband
from
representing
his
wife.
Without
written
reasons,
the
Associate
Senior
Prothonotary
issued,
on
February
15,
1993,
the
following
order:
Motion
that
Ruth
Giagnocavo
be
allowed
to
be
represented
by
her
husband
in
this
action
is
dismissed.
On
December
16,
1988,
both
Ruth
and
John
Giagnocavo,
as
plaintiffs,
filed
a
statement
of
claim
in
the
Federal
Court
Registry.
Mr.
Giagnocavo
described
himself
as
the
husband
and
agent
of
Ruth
Giagnocavo.
The
action
concerned
an
income
tax
problem
of
Ruth
Giagnocavo.
The
defendant,
on
March
20,
1989,
filed
a
notice
of
motion
to
strike
out
the
statement
of
claim
and
dismiss
the
action
or,
in
the
alternative,
to
strike
out
John
Giagnocavo
from
the
style
of
cause.
On
April
10,
1989,
it
was
ordered
that
John
Giagnocavo
be
struck
from
the
style
of
cause.
From
April
10,
1989,
to
February
15,
1993,
both
parties
filed
a
number
of
motions.
The
defendant
filed
on
October
8,
1992
a
motion
to
dismiss
the
plaintiff's
claim
for
want
of
prosecution.
This
motion
was
dismissed
by
the
Associate
Chief
Justice
on
December
16,
1992
“
upon
plaintiff's
undertaking
to
proceed
expeditiously
to
trial”.
No
affidavit
was
filed
by
the
plaintiff
for
the
present
appeal.
Although
I
have
no
evidence
before
me,
I
am
satisfied
that
Mr.
John
Giagnocavo
is
the
husband
of
Ruth,
that
they
have
been
married
for
over
40
years
and
have
had
seven
children.
I
am
also
satisfied
that
Ruth
Giagnocavo
would
feel
"very
comfortable"
with
her
husband
representing
her.
With
all
due
respect
to
Mr.
Giagnocavo,
I
can
find
no
merit
to
the
submission
made
to
me
by
him
as
to
why
he
feels
he
has
"an
inherent
right”
to
represent
the
interest
of
his
wife.
Marriage
does
not
give
a
husband,
in
law,
the
inherent
right
to
represent
a
wife
in
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada.
It
was
submitted
that
the
Bible
allows
the
husband
to
represent
a
wife
and
that
since
marriage
“is
made
in
heaven"
it
is
God's
law
that
a
husband
has
the
inherent
right,
with
the
consent
of
the
wife,
to
represent
his
wife
and
this,
in
a
Court
of
Law.
After
reflection
of
approximately
15
hours,
John
Giagnocavo
agreed
that
a
wife
would
also
have
the
same
right
as
a
husband
if
he
gave
his
consent.
It
is
obvious
that
this
submission
cannot
be
accepted.
The
Federal
Court
of
Canada
is
a
Superior
Court
of
Record.
It
has
the
powers
to
make
its
own
rules
as
to
the
procedure
that
will
be
followed
in
the
Court.
In
the
case
of
Azhar
Bishay
v.
The
Queen
represented
by
The
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
T-1940-91,
unreported,
October
9,
1991,
a
decision
of
the
Associate
Senior
Prothonotary
confirmed
in
appeal
on
December
2,
1991
states:
I
note
that
Rule
300(1)
provides:
An
individual
may
act
in
person
or
be
represented
by
a
solicitor
in
any
proceedings
in
the
Court.
There
is
no
provision
for
one
spouse,
not
being
a
solicitor,
to
represent
the
other
spouse.
I
would
therefore
dismiss
this
motion
as
there
is
no
provision
in
the
Rules
which
would
appear
to
permit
the
Court
to
grant
leave
for
one
spouse
not
being
a
solicitor
to
represent
the
other.
The
rule
is
clear,
an
individual
may
act
in
person
or
be
represented
by
a
solicitor
in
any
proceeding
before
the
Court.
The
appeal
is
denied.
Costs
in
favour
of
the
defendant.
Appeal
denied.
Email this Content