Date: 20041015
Docket: T-1542-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1426
Ottawa, Ontario, this 15th day of October, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SNIDER
BETWEEN:
kisikawpimootewin
Sentient human being, Heir, Successor as Signatory of a separate and distinct
Indigenous Peoples to Friendship Treaties (for the mutual benefits for trade
and commerce), The Peace Treaties (to keep secure the trade and
commerce), and Numbered Treaties (entrusting the Sovereign Territories to
Her Majesty), made with Queen Victoria, Her Heir(s) and Successor(s) as
Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heir(s), Successor(s) and Predecessor(s)
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Her Majesty's Loyal sworn Officer(s) acting in Her Majesty's name
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
SNIDER J.
[1] The Plaintiff commenced his action by filing a document described as a Statement of Claim with this Court on August 23, 2004. The Crown has brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 on the grounds that it supports no cause of action or, in the alternative, an extension of the time to file a Statement of Defence. The Crown claims that the Statement of Claim does not conform to Rule 174 which requires a Statement of Claim to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies.
Issue
[2] The issue to be determined is whether there is a legal cause of action found within the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim. For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that there is not and that it should be struck.
Analysis
[3] There are two grounds for striking a Statement of Claim:
1) that it discloses no reasonable cause of action; and
2) that it contains a scandalous, vexatious and frivolous claim.
1) No reasonable cause of action
[4] The test in Canada to strike out a pleading is whether it is plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959).
[5] Prothonotary Hargrave, in the case of Ceminchuk v. Canada, [1995] F.C.J. No. 914 at paragraph 3 could be speaking about the present case when he says:
The Statement of Claim consists of unconnected statements and conclusions which do not have the underpinning of material and necessary facts leading up to those statements and conclusions. The Plaintiff, in his Statement of Claim, says he has numerous documents on which he will rely... However, that is not the point: it is for the plaintiff to provide a Statement of Claim containing enough narrative, particulars and material facts not only to show a cause of action, but also both to allow the defendant to plead to the Statement of Claim and to allow the Court to properly regulate the proceedings.
[6] The test in Hunt,supra, for striking the Statement of Claim has been met. It is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim in this case discloses no reasonable cause of action for the following reasons:
1. The Defendant or Defendants are never identified beyond an all encompassing title of officer or officers of Her Majesty the Queen;
2. The Statement of Claim is very wordy and difficult to follow; there are large portions of it that have no relevance to any issue;
3. The language used is vague and overly inclusive;
4. There are no details about any of the events that comprise the allegations listed;
5. The Plaintiff claims protection under every Canadian provincial and federal law ever made and every international human rights law;
6. The list of types of damages claimed are not supported by any facts;
7. The relief requested, in a total amount of five billion dollars, is not based on any facts.
[7] This is sufficient to strike the Statement of Claim.
2) A scandalous, vexatious and frivolous claim
[8] As stated in Ceminchuk,supra, at para. 10:
A scandalous, vexatious or frivolous action may not only be one in which the claimant can present no rational argument, based upon the evidence or law, in support of the claim, but also may be an action in which the pleadings are so deficient in factual material that the defendant cannot know how to answer, and a court will be unable to regulate the proceedings, is an action without reasonable cause, which will not lead to a practical result.
[9] In the case at bar, there is very little beyond bare assertions and bald statements against the unidentified and unspecified Defendant(s). The claim is vexatious in that the Defendant, if identifiable, is left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself. The Court is left with a proceeding so ill-defined that it is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific material facts.
[10] On September 13, 2004, on the initial date set for the hearing of the Crown's motion, the Plaintiff was made aware that the Court was having difficulties understanding what he had written and suggested that he redraft it. In spite of this recommendation by the Court and the opportunity to amend the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff chose not to re-write his claim, and so it stands as it did originally. The only change submitted was to add an additional claim for damages for breach of contract in the amount of $1 Billion.
[11] Although the Plaintiff filed a motion record on September 16, 2004, the document is equally incomprehensible and fails to reply to the Crown's motion.
Conclusion
[12] "No cause of action can exist where no material facts are alleged" (Chavali v. Canada (2002), 291 N.R. 311). That is the case here. It is not that there are few facts or confused facts; there are no facts.
[13] This Statement of Claim should be struck on the grounds that it is vexatious and embarrassing and that it discloses no cause of action, reasonable or otherwise.
[14] I do not doubt that the Plaintiff feels very strongly about pursuing whatever remedies he can to right what he sees as wrongs done to him. It is open to the Plaintiff to commence a new action by filing a Statement of Claim that accords with the requirements and to which a known Defendant can meaningfully respond.
[15] I note that the Plaintiff was provided with some guidance by this Court and an opportunity to amend his Statement of Claim. He did not do so in any meaningful way, thereby creating a situation where the Defendant's counsel and the Court were required needlessly to devote more time to this question. Accordingly, in my discretion, I am prepared to award costs, fixed in the amount of $300, to the Defendant.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The statement of claim is struck;
2. Costs, fixed in the amount of $300 are payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
"Judith A. Snider"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1542-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: kisikawpimootewin v. Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada
Her Majesty's Loyal sworn Officer(s)
acting in Her Majesty's name
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: October 12, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
DATED: October 15, 2004
APPEARANCES:
kisikawpimootwin FOR PLAINTIFF (For Himself)
Ms. Maria Mendola-Dow FOR DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Edmonton, Alberta FOR PLAINTIFF (For Himself)
Morris Rosenberg FOR DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content