Date: 19991201
Docket: T-942-99
Ottawa, Ontario, the 1st day of December 1999
PRESENT: The Honourable Madame Justice Sharlow
BETWEEN:
KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ORDER & REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] The Statement of Claim was struck by order of a Prothonotary rendered on August 9, 1999, upon the motion of the Respondent. The Plaintiff appealed by way of a notice of motion with a request that it be dealt with under Rule 369.
[2] On October 18, 1999, Campbell J. ordered that the Plaintiff's appeal not be dealt with under Rule 369. He ordered the appeal placed on the list for motions day on November 1, 1999. The order of Campbell J. was sent to the Plaintiff by registered mail on October 22, 1999. (I note that service of documents by ordinary mail is authorized in this case by a prior order of Campbell J.) The Plaintiff did not appear on November 1, 1999.
[3] Counsel for Respondent moved that the Plaintiff"s motion for appeal be denied for failure to appear. He also asked for costs of $500. I reserved on the Respondent's motion to allow further time to check for correspondence from the Plaintiff to the Court. I asked the Registrar to check for correspondence that might have been received in the Toronto registry or the Ottawa registry to explain why the Plaintiff did not appear. None has been found.
[4] The failure of the Plaintiff to appear does not prejudice the Respondent. It is possible to consider the Plaintiff's appeal on the basis of the material in the file. For that reason, I will dismiss the Respondent's motion to deny the Plaintiff's appeal for failure to appear and I will consider the Plaintiff's appeal on the basis of the written material filed in support of the Rule 369 motion, as he originally requested.
[5] The order of the Prothonotary that is under appeal put an end to the Plaintiff's action. In these circumstances I am obliged by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425 to consider anew the motion that was before the Prothonotary.
[6] The motion was made by the Respondent under Rule 221 for an order striking out the statement of claim because it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and in the alternative for an order directing the Plaintiff to provide particulars of the claim.
[7] I have carefully reviewed the Statement of Claim. There are allegations of wrongdoing against numerous parties in respect of a number of events. I agree with the Respondent's characterization of the Plaintiff's statements as rambling and incoherent. In so far as I can discern factual allegations, and taking them as true, I am unable to identify a cause of action against the Respondent.
[8] For these reasons, I have concluded that the Statement of Claim was correctly struck out. The Plaintiff's appeal of the Prothonotary's order is dismissed.
Karen R. Sharlow
Judge
Email this Content