Rothstein J.:
UPON MOTION, filed the 29th day of May, 1998, on behalf of the Plaintiff, Dragisa Gajic, for an Order under Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules:
1. to set aside the ruling of Mr. John Hargrave, Prothonotary, announced May 19 and 20, 1998, dismissing the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim as disclosing no cause of action;
2. to reinstate the claim against both Crowns or one; and
3. to allow the Plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim against Revenue Canada to include negligence on the part of Revenue Canada’s assessor.
It is Hereby Ordered:
In spite of the compelling submission of the Plaintiff, I can see no error in the judgment of the learned Prothonotary. I adopt the reasons of the Prothonotary for dismissing the Plaintiffs action as my own and must accordingly dismiss the appeal.
I would observe that the Prothonotary, on the basis of the facts before him, was of the view that the Provincial Crown had been unjustly enriched and had refused to make any refund to the Plaintiff. Before me, counsel for the Province suggested there were facts not before the Court that would make the Plaintiffs case less compelling. That may be so, but at this point, the Federal Government has returned to the Plaintiff excess taxes, penalties and interest collected. The Provincial Government refuses to refund its portion. It must be bewildering, to say the least, for individuals to be faced with inconsistent treatment as between two levels of Government on the same issue.
The Plaintiff says he has contacted his MLA and Provincial Ombudsman but to no avail. He says he has received no determination by the Provincial Ombudsman as of yet. I would suggest that the Plaintiff make a concerted effort to clearly put his case before the Provincial Ombudsman and provide the Ombudsman with the various judgments he has received. While beyond my jurisdiction, I would take the liberty of suggesting that either the Ombudsman should make a recommendation to the Provincial Government to refund the Plaintiffs overpayment or provide the Plaintiff with clear reasons as to why such a recommendation is considered inappropriate.
The appeal is dismissed. There will be no award as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Email this Content