Date: 20040213
Docket: T-1158-02
Citation: 2004 FC 229
Vancouver, British Columbia, Friday, the 13th day of February, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
PAUL ALLAN CARLSON
Plaintiff
- and -
THE ROYAL CANADIAN
MOUNTED POLICE
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Paul Allan Carlson, a self-represented federal inmate at Mountain Institution, has appealed pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, the February 4, 2003 decision of Prothonotary John Hargrave (the Prothonotary) striking out, without leave to amend, his amended statement of claim.
[2] Since the Prothonotary's decision terminated Mr. Carlson's action, according to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. [1993] 2 F.C. 425, I must exercise my discretion de novo, meaning that the Prothonotary's decision is to be accorded due weight subject to my overriding discretion.
[3] In his reasons the Prothonotary wrote:
4. The Amended Statement of Claim, filed 2 December 2002, seeks damages from the RCMP in the amount of $1 million on the basis of what appears to be an illegal placing of the Plaintiff under arrest, some time before a trial in 1994, and a failure to advise him as to his rights, thus breaching the Plaintiff's basic Charter rights. However, this is a very broad overview of the Amended Statement of Claim, which is completely disjointed and often incomprehensible.
5. The Crown now moves to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim on the basis that the RCMP is not a legal entity, but more important, on the basis that the pleading does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, pleads evidence and conclusion without factual foundation, makes immaterial or redundant allegations and is frivilous [sic] and vexatious and, as such, is bereft of any possibility of success.
6. The Plaintiff has advised the Court, in writing, that he does not intend to contest the motion.
7. I have considered the Amended Statement of Claim , the material filed by the Crown and the case law referred to by the Crown. The Amended Statement of Claim is so imprecise, confusing, unintelligible and contains so few particulars and material facts that the Defendant cannot possibility know or understand the case to be met. Thus, not only would the Defendant be unable to file a meaningful defence, but also, the Court would be unable to regulate the matter.
8. Giving the Amended Statement of Claim a generous reading, I cannot find any definable cause of action. The action is struck out not only because it discloses no reasonable cause of action and as such plainly and obviously cannot succeed, but also, it is overall scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, a proceeding which would lead to no practical result.
9. The Defendant asks that the Amended Statement of Claim be summarily dismissed. I have considered both the original Statement of Claim and the Amended Statement of Claim. I do not see a scintilla cause of action which might be put forward by further amendment. The Amended Statement of Claim is struck out without leave to amend. As provided for in Rule 221, the action is dismissed.
[4] I am in agreement with counsel for the respondent this appeal must be dismissed with costs and this for two reasons.
[5] First, as argued by the Respondent, this appeal is an abuse of process because the plaintiff had advised the Registry in writing on January 9th, 2003:
I will not be serving/filing any response ... therefore please put or allow the Court to rule on the defendant's motion record and to advise me on its ruling when actioned.
[6] The doctrine of abuse of process is a flexible one which enables the Court to control its process in the interests of justice.
[7] Clearly, to appeal a decision when one did not oppose it is an abuse of process and the fact an individual is self-represented is not a shield to its application.
[8] Second, there is no merit to Mr. Carlson's appeal.
[9] The defendant's motion record served and filed on January 15, 2003 was not in form and content contrary to the Rules as asserted by the plaintiff.
[10] His reference to section 23 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not assist him in grounding a cause of action.
[11] As made clear by the Prothonotary, the core of his decision is his finding that "the amended statement of claim is so imprecise/confusing/unintelligible and contains so few particulars and material facts that the defendant cannot possibly know or understand the case to be met ... but also the Court would be unable to regulate the matter.".
[12] This finding led him to conclude he could not find any definable cause of action.
[13] I reviewed the amended statement of claim and come to the same conclusion as the Prothonotary did.
[14] Moreover, the interlocutory orders by various judges of this Court in this file were not, as argued by the plaintiff, the views of those judges on the merits of this appeal. They were of a procedural nature only.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this appeal is dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "F. Lemieux"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1158-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Paul Allan Carlson v. The Royal Canadian Mounted
Police
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver
DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : LEMIEUX J.
DATED: February 13, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Paul Allan Carlson FOR PLAINTIFF
(self-represented)
Mr. Ken Manning FOR DEFENDANT
Department of Justice
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content