Date: 20070117
Docket: T-1940-06
Citation: 2007
FC 48
Vancouver, British
Columbia,
January 17, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
BETWEEN:
PRADEEP KUMAR VERMA and
CAROLE ANN BROWN
Plaintiffs
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN THE
RIGHT
OF CANADA (as vicariously liable on behalf of
counsel for
the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ms. Sarah Frost)
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This is a
motion by the Defendant under Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules for an
order that the statement of claim be struck without leave to amend. In the
alternative, the Defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 8(1) extending the
time for the Defendant to file a statement of defence. In the further
alternative, the Defendant seeks an order that the Plaintiff seek leave to file
an amended statement of claim.
[2]
The Defendant’s
motion to strike is brought pursuant to Rule 221(1) (a), (c) and (f) alleging
that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is
scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and is an abuse of process. The Defendant
further submits that the statement of claim fails to conform to Rule 174 that
requires that a statement of claim contain material facts and Rule 181 that
requires that a statement of claim contain particulars of every allegation.
[3]
A
statement of claim should only be struck if it is plain and obvious that the
claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (Hunt v. Carey Inc.,
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 959). The statement of claim names as Defendant the Crown
"as vicariously liable on behalf of counsel for the Deputy Attorney
General of Canada, Ms. Sarah Frost" and alleges, among other things, that
the Defendant denied the Plaintiffs access to the courts and conspired with a
variety of persons, including provincial Attorneys General and the Judicial
Administrator of this Court, to amend the Constitution of Canada, perpetrate
Charter torts, and misapply the law in a fraudulent and abusive manner. The
allegations are incomprehensible and there is not a single fact to support the
allegations. Moreover, the acts alleged are not causes of action. The plain and
obvious test is met in this case.
[4]
The
statement of claim should also be struck on the ground that it is frivolous and
vexatious. An action will be considered scandalous, vexatious or frivolous
where pleadings are so deficient in factual material that the defendant cannot
know how to answer (Ceminchuk v. Canada, [1995] F.C.J. No. 914 (QL), Kisikawpimootewin
v. Canada, 2004 FC 1426).
[5]
The Plaintiffs
did not file a motion record for this motion; however, in a letter to the Court
dated December 11, 2006, the Plaintiffs state that they were not notified of
the motion. There is no foundation to this argument given that a certificate of
service was filed with the Court.
[6]
The Plaintiffs
also submitted that the Court could not deal with this motion before a number
of outstanding motions in this action have been dealt with. One of the motions
referred to is a motion brought by the Plaintiffs that was adjourned sine
die by Madam Justice Heneghan in a direction dated December 1, 2006, upon a
request by the Plaintiffs to adjourn. The matter could have been brought back
on for hearing after the Plaintiffs complied with Rule 360. The Plaintiffs have
chosen not to bring the matter back and they cannot now claim that the Court is
barred from hearing other motions until that motion is heard.
[7]
I note
that the Plaintiffs attempted to file an amended statement of claim. Mr.
Justice Harrington on November 9, 2006, directed the registry not to file the
amended statement of claim as it adds new Defendants and alleges causes of
actions not covered in the original statement of claim. The amended statement
of claim was even less comprehensible than the original one. It listed the
federal Attorney General as a defendant, as well as two provincial Attorneys
General, and alleged they were vicariously liable for the acts of dozens of
people.
[8]
Finally, I
note that this is the second action brought by the Plaintiffs in this Court in
which the statement of claim has been struck. In his order of November 9, 2006,
Mr. Justice Harrington struck out a statement of claim of the Plaintiffs in an
earlier action naming the Federal Crown as the defendant. Based on that order,
it appears that the statement of claim suffered from the same defects as the
one in this action. The Plaintiffs had the benefit of Mr. Justice Harrington’s
order which clearly explained the flaws with their statement of claim and, yet,
the Plaintiffs started this action with a statement of claim that was fatally
flawed.
[9]
I strike
out the entire statement of claim, without leave to amend, and dismiss the
action.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant's motion is
granted. The statement of claim is struck out and the Plaintiffs' action is
dismissed with costs.
"Yvon
Pinard"
Email this Content