Date: 20100323
Docket: T‑68‑09
Citation: 2010 FC 330
Toronto, Ontario, March 23, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice
Mainville
BETWEEN:
NICOLE (NORA) HÉROLD
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL
CANADA
REVENUE AGENCY (CRA) AND
THE
PARTIES TO THE OFFENCES: EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EI),
HUMAN
RESOURCES AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA (HRSDC),
SUDBURY TAX CENTRE
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
Nicole (Nora) Hérold (the applicant) is appealing
two orders dated February 2, 2010, signed by Prothonotary Mireille Tabib.
One of those orders allowed a motion to amend the pleadings submitted by the
applicant and established a timetable to ensure the proper course of
proceedings. The other order dismissed a motion by the applicant to strike out
the respondents’ pleadings and receive the respondents’ pre-trial conference
memorandum with the list of the witnesses and documents.
[2]
Some background is in order here. The applicant
filed an action in this Court on February 14, 2009, to be reimbursed for
amounts which she alleged the respondents unfairly deducted from her wages,
pension and unemployment compensation. The applicant also seeks an amount of
$600,000 from the respondents for injury, interest and punitive damages. In
their defence, the respondents submit that the deductions concern the payment
of student loans that were granted to the applicant and never repaid. Moreover,
the respondents are claiming in turn an amount of $9,509.28 from the respondent
for the repayment of those loans. The applicant states that she has already
repaid those loans and that the respondents’ seizures and other proceedings are
abusive, which justifies her claim for the amount of $600,000.
[3]
The applicant submitted a first motion to amend
her pleadings, which was dismissed by Prothonotary Tabib on October 22,
2009, on account of the numerous flaws and errors in the amendment pleadings.
However, that dismissal was subject to applicant’s right to file a new motion
to amend her pleadings [translation]
“in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the body of this order.”
[4]
By order dated November 26, 2009,
Prothonotary Tabib dismissed a second motion by the applicant to amend her
pleadings for reasons similar to the first dismissal. At that time, the
prothonotary noted that the many difficulties encountered in the conduct of the
file were due to [translation]
“to the fact that the applicant is self‑represented and unfamiliar with
the rules of practice and procedure applicable to proceedings before the courts
of law”.
[5]
As noted above, by an order dated
February 2, 2010, Prothonotary Tabib accepted a third motion by the
applicant for leave to amend her pleadings, despite her failure to comply with
certain rules of the Court. The prothonotary also established a new timetable
taking into account the amendments to the applicant’s pleadings. Yet, the
applicant is appealing this order, which granted her motion.
[6]
To begin with, I note that it is quite unusual
for a party to appeal an order that is essentially in that party’s favour. When
the Court questioned the applicant on the matter, she conceded that she was not
dissatisfied with the result of the order, but rather with the reasons in
support thereof. Yet, it is clear that the reasons for an order cannot be
appealed when the conclusions of that order are satisfactory to the appellant.
The principle is so well known in law that it does not warrant my discussing it
any further.
[7]
In this case, the appeal of that decision will
therefore be dismissed.
[8]
As for the second decision appealed, the
applicant is seeking to have the respondents’ pleadings dismissed on the
grounds that she has already repaid her student loans and that, in this case,
the respondents have no valid defence to put forward or claims to make against
her. The prothonotary dismissed that motion for the reason that it was clearly
frivolous and without merit. The prothonotary did not err in so deciding. The
applicant’s point of view is not the only one which will be argued before the
Court on the merits of this case, and the respondents will not be denied their
right to full answer and defence. This is a fundamental principal that is at
the very heart of our justice system.
[9]
In that second decision, the prothonotary also
dismissed another motion filed by the applicant to obtain the respondents’
memorandum with the list of their witnesses and documents, owing, among other
things, to the applicant’s motion to amend her pleadings, which rendered the
decision moot. I see no error in the prothonotary’s decision in that regard.
[10]
In this case, the appeal of the second decision
will also be dismissed.
[11]
The costs of these appeals will be in the cause.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the two appeals of the orders made by Prothonotary Mireille Tabib on
February 2, 2010, are dismissed, and that the costs of these appeals will
be in the cause.
“Robert Mainville”
Certified true
translation
Sarah Burns
Email this Content