Jerome,
A.C.J.:—This
application
by
the
Crown
to
strike
the
plaintiffs
statement
of
claim
came
on
for
hearing
at
London,
Ontario,
on
November
18,
1986.
At
the
conclusion
of
argument,
I
indicated
that
the
order
would
issue
and
that
these
brief
written
reasons
would
follow.
The
plaintiff
commenced
an
action
in
this
Court
concerning
the
defendant's
assessment
of
taxes
for
her
1984
taxation
year.
That
action
is
identified
as
Court
file
number
T-2473-85.
The
defendant
included
in
her
list
of
documents,
the
plaintiff's
1982,
1983
and
1984
tax
returns
which
were
sent
to
the
plaintiff
together
with
notice
of
an
appointment
for
examination
for
discovery.
The
plaintiff
advised
the
defendant
that
the
document
purporting
to
be
her
1983
tax
return
was
fraudulent
and,
therefore,
invalid.
She
requested
that
all
proceedings
be
held
in
abeyance
while
she
reported
the
Crown's
use
of
fraudulent
documents
to
this
Court.
The
plaintiff
subsequently
commenced
this
action
pursuant
to
Rule
409
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules.
The
statement
of
claim
alleges
that
following
their
separation
in
1981,
the
plaintiff's
estranged
husband
began
a
campaign
to
ridicule
her
as
“a
terrorists
and
a
mad
Iranian
psychic
who
could
hurt
white
Canadians",
bringing
about
“torturous
methods
by
which
the
authorities
could
scan
her
thoughts".
The
concluding
paragraph
of
the
statement
of
claim
reads:
The
Plaintiff
claims
that
the
use
of
the
aforementioned
fraudulent
document
by
a
branch
of
Revenue
Canada
located
in
the
city
of
SUDBURY
is
part
of
the
aforementioned
conspiracy
that
led
to
the
aforementioned
Authorized
Racial
Violence.
Therefore
the
Plaintiff
intends
to
utilize
this
concrete
evidence
of
government
corruption
in
SUDBURY
for
the
following
purposes:
(a)
to
prove
in
the
Federal
Court
that
the
aforementioned
conspiracy
starting
in
Sudbury,
in
fact
has
taken
place.
(b)
to
obtain
a
relief
against
the
CRIMINAL
authorities
who
make
the
Plaintiff
subject
to
scanning
thoughts
processes
and
inhuman
torturous
experiments
based
on
the
use
of
electro
magnetic
waves.
The
defendant
seeks
an
order
striking
the
statement
of
claim
pursuant
to
Rule
419(1)(a),
(c)
and
(f):
419(1)
The
Court
may
at
any
stage
of
an
action
order
any
pleading
to
be
struck
out,
with
or
without
leave
to
amend,
on
the
ground
that
(a)
it
discloses
no
reasonable
cause
of
action
or
defence,
as
the
case
may
be,
(c)
it
is
scandalous,
frivolous
or
vexatious,
(f)
it
is
otherwise
an
abuse
of
the
process
of
the
Court,
and
may
order
the
action
to
be
stayed
or
dismissed
or
judgment
to
be
entered
accordingly.
(2)
No
evidence
shall
be
admissible
on
an
application
under
paragraph
(1)(a).
Rule
409
provides:
409.
A
party
shall
plead
specifically
any
matter
(for
example,
performance,
release,
a
statute
of
limitation,
prescription,
fraud
or
any
fact
showing
illegality)
(a)
that
he
alleges
makes
a
claim
or
defence
of
the
opposite
party
not
maintainable;
(b)
that,
if
not
specifically
pleaded,
might
take
the
opposite
party
by
surprise;
or
(c)
that
raises
issues
of
fact
not
arising
out
of
the
preceding
pleading.
It
is
clear
that
allegations
of
a
conspiracy
involving
her
husband
must
be
tried
in
the
civil
courts
of
the
Province.
It
is
also
clear
that
no
result
at
the
trial
of
this
action
could
lead
to
an
order
against
criminal
authorities
as
sought.
At
the
outset
of
the
motion,
I
was
concerned
that
allegations
of
a
falsified
or
fraudulent
document
for
use
by
taxation
authorities
might
establish
a
cause
of
action
in
this
Court.
In
the
manner
in
which
it
is
pleaded,
however,
it
is
not
identified
as
a
separate
independent
cause
of
action
in
any
way.
It
is
interwoven
with
the
matters
in
respect
of
which
we
are
totally
without
jurisdiction.
The
motion
to
strike
will
therefore
succeed.
Motion
granted.
Email this Content