Rouleau
J.:
—
On
June
6,
1996,
two
motions
as
well
as
a
cross-motion
were
before
the
Court.
The
Defendant
sought
an
Order
striking
out
the
Plaintiff’s
Amended
Statement
of
Claim
without
leave
to
amend;
the
Plaintiff
sought
an
Order
dismissing
the
Defendant’s
motion
to
strike
the
Amended
Statement
of
Claim.
The
Plaintiff
also
sought
an
Order
dismissing
the
Defendant’s
allegations
as
well
as
an
interlocutory
injunction
prohibiting
the
Defendant
from
harassing
and
slandering
him
until
this
Court
renders
judgement
in
his
suit.
On
March
18,
1996,
the
Plaintiff
filed
a
Statement
of
Claim
which
he
later
amended
on
March
28,
1996;
he
claimed
damages
for
loss
of
income
from
1988
to
1996
because
of
harassment
he
alleged
he
was
subjected
to
by
officials
from
the
Defendant.
Before
me,
the
Plaintiff
explained
to
the
Court
that
he
first
arrived
in
Canada
and
settled
in
Winnipeg
in
March,
1969.
In
1974,
he
began
operating
a
painting
business
and
his
wife
owned
a
beauty
salon.
However,
in
1981,
they
terminated
both
business
operations
and
moved
to
Kitchener,
Ontario.
Shortly
after
arriving,
he
bought
his
wife
an
investment
property,
namely
an
eight-plex.
After
hearing
submissions,
it
became
evident
to
me
that
the
alleged
harassment
proceedings
arose
initially
from
notices
of
reassessment
for
the
period
of
time
that
the
Plaintiff
had
been
in
business
in
Winnipeg.
He
had
been
denied
certain
deductions
and
expenses
from
his
business
operations
and
was
reassessed.
Further,
by
a
letter
dated
November
17,
1983,
the
Plaintiff
was
reminded
by
the
Defendant
that
he
had
to
file
an
Income
Tax
Return
for
the
taxation
year
1982
on
or
before
December
15,
1983.
Obviously,
he
was
offended
and
refused
to
do
so
and
filed
a
Notice
of
objection
stating,
inter
alia,
the
following:
When
Lucien
Vojic
last
filed
income
tax
returns
for
the
years
1978,
1979,
1980
and
1981
his
lawful
and
ordinary
business
decuctions
and
expenses
in
those
years
were
arbitrarily
and
illegally
disallowed
by
the
DNR.
An
unfair
Notice
of
Assessment
resulted
which
was
objected
to
within
the
prescribed
period
by
the
taxpayer.
The
DNR
ignores
this
objection
and
without
due
regard
to
the
taxpayer’s
rights
proceeded
to
initiate
an
unfair
and
harassing
campaign
of
collection
against
the
taxpayer,
his
wife
and
his
brother.
[sic]
From
that
day
forward,
it
would
appear
that
the
Plaintiff
filed
several
Motions
as
well
as
Notices
of
objection
both
in
this
Court
and
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
to
challenge
the
tax
assessments
and
reassessments.
However,
most,
if
not
all,
were
repeatedly
adjourned
and
then
dismissed.
It
was
also
revealed
that
the
Plaintiff
disagreed
with
his
income
tax
assessments
for
the
taxation
years
1988,
1989,
1990
as
well
as
1991;
these
also
lead
to
numerous
Court
proceedings
that
were
also
dismissed.
In
his
various
proceedings,
the
Plaintiff
alleged,
inter
alia,
that
the
Defendant
acted
contrary
to
the
Charter,
had
no
evidence
to
support
its
tax
assessments,
was
blackmailing
him
and
committed
theft
against
him
and
his
family.
A
total
of
nine
proceedings
were
initiated
in
the
Federal
Court
by
this
Plaintiff
dating
back
to
1984;
four
were
either
struck
or
dismissed;
two
files
remain
dormant
and
are
without
activity.
This
Plaintiff
even
sought
leave
to
appeal
a
matter
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
which
was
denied
in
1986.
I
first
determined
to
entertain
the
Defendant’s
motion;
the
Minister
argued
that
the
Amended
Statement
of
Claim
did
not
disclose
a
reasonable
cause
of
action
pursuant
to
paragraph
419(
1
)(a)
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules.
Pursuant
to
paragraph
419(
1
)(a)
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules:
419(1)
The
Court
may
at
any
stage
of
an
action
order
any
pleading
or
anything
in
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,
[..J
and
may
order
the
action
to
be
stayed
or
dismissed
or
judgment
to
be
entered
accordingly.
When
asked
to
strike
down
a
Statement
of
Claim,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Hunt
v.
T
&
N
pic,
[1990]
2
S.C.R.
959,
(sub
nom.
Hunt
v.
Carey
Canada
Inc.)
74
D.L.R.
(4th)
321
at
page
979
(D.L.R.
335)
adopted
the
following
test:
...[A]ll
the
facts
pleaded
in
the
statement
of
claim
must
be
deemed
to
have
been
proven.
On
a
motion
such
as
this
a
court
should,
of
course,
dismiss
the
action
or
strike
out
any
claim
made
by
the
plaintiff
only
in
plain
and
obvious
cases
and
where
the
court
is
satisfied
that
“the
case
is
beyond
doubt”:
Ross
v.
Scottish
Union
and
National
Insurance
Co."
As
well,
Joyal
J.
stated
the
following
in
Incendex
Inc.
v.
Canada,
[1991]
A.C.F.
No
961:
The
principles
applicable
to
the
striking
out
of
a
statement
of
claim
are
now
well
known
and
were
very
clearly
stated
by
Estey
J.
in
Attorney
General
of
Canada
v.
Inuit
Tapirisat
of
Canada,
[1980]
2
S.C.R.
735,
at
740:
On
a
motion
such
as
this
a
court
should,
of
course,
dismiss
the
action
or
strike
out
any
claim
made
by
the
plaintiff
only
in
plain
and
obvious
cases
and
where
the
court
is
satisfied
that
“the
case
is
beyond
doubt”
.
.
.
This
principle
has
been
applied
in
a
great
number
of
cases:
see
Burnaby
Machine
&
Mill
Equipment
Ltd.
v.
Berglund
Industrial
Supply
Co.
Ltd.
(1982),
64
C.P.C.
(2d)
206
(F.C.
Trial
Division),
Dube
J.;
Operation
Dismantle
Inc.
v.
R.,
[1985]
1
S.C.R.
441,
Wilson
J.;
Glaxco
Canada
Inc.
v.
Department
of
National
Health
&
Welfare
of
Government
of
Canada
(1987),
15
C.P.R.
(3d)
1,
Rouleau
J.;
Pacific
Fishermen’s
Defence
Alliance
v.
Canada,
[1988]
1
F.C.
498
(C.A.).
On
an
application
to
strike
out
a
statement
of
claim
pursuant
to
Rule
419(l)(a),
the
words
“obvious”
and
“beyond
doubt”
impose
a
heavy
burden
on
the
applicant.
The
Court
will
only
exercise
its
discretion
in
the
most
exceptional
cases.
If
the
statement
of
claim
discloses
any
cause
of
action
whatever
or
raises
any
question
that
may
be
decided
by
a
trial,
the
fact
that
the
cause
may
seem
less
than
convincing
does
not
justify
its
being
struck
out.
Such
an
application
will
only
be
allowed
when
it
is
obvious
that
the
statement
of
claim
is
devoid
of
merit
or
cannot
possibly
succeed
(Glaxco
Canada
Inc.
v.
Department
of
National
Health
&
Welfare,
supra).
After
carefully
reviewing
this
file,
I
am
satisfied
that
the
Amended
Statement
of
Claim
should
be
struck
without
leave
to
amend;
it
discloses
no
reasonable
cause
of
action.
In
the
case
at
bar,
even
assuming
that
all
of
the
facts
alleged
in
the
Amended
Statement
of
Claim
are
true,
I
have
determined
that
the
Plaintiff
has
not
established
a
cause
of
action.
The
pleading
only
provides
the
Court
with
conclusions
of
law.
Further,
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
would
be
the
proper
forum
to
hear
the
Plaintiff’s
claims
since
they
arose
out
of
the
Plaintiff’s
disagreement
with
reassessments
that
he
received
regarding
several
taxation
years
dating
back
to
the
late
seventies.
Accordingly,
the
Defendant’s
motion
is
granted.
Since
there
is
no
longer
a
subsisting
proceeding,
the
Plaintiffs
motions
are
dismissed.
In
light
of
the
history
I
have
referred
to,
counsel
for
the
Defendant
might
consider
an
application
under
section
40
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
in
relation
to
this
Plaintiff.
Amended
statement
of
claim
ordered
struck
out.
Email this Content