Date: 20081104
Docket: T-1389-08
Citation: 2008
FC 1232
BETWEEN:
TRIPTA
VERMA
Plaintiff
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
These are
the reasons for my Order of November 3, 2008 dismissing the appeal of
Prothonotary Lafrenière’s Order of October 14, 2008 striking the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim.
II. BACKGROUND
[2]
This case
is linked, in some ill-defined way, to at least three other Court files -
T-156-06, T‑1696-06 and T-1940-06 - each of which have been dismissed by
judges of this Court.
[3]
The
current proceeding is in respect of a Statement of Claim filed on September 8,
2008 containing numerous, fanciful and legally untenable allegations including
that of the “tort of perspective and impending Charter breach”,
misfeasance in public office by “anticipated application to strike”, the
“perspective Charter tort of misfeasance in public office” by refusing
to admit that the Judicial Administrator of the Federal Court (amongst others)
have “not engaged in mischief of Rule 399 motions, in respect of the other
Court files listed” [sic].
[4]
The
Statement of Claim goes on in the same nature and style, the details of which
are both extensive and unnecessary to outline here.
[5]
The
learned Prothonotary struck the Statement of Claim. In so doing, the learned
Prothonotary described the Statement of Claim as making broad, sweeping and, at
times, scandalous allegations that the Crown and others deprived the Plaintiff
of access to the provincial and federal courts.
[6]
The learned
Prothonotary also held that the Statement of Claim failed to comply with
Rule 174 of the Federal Courts Rules in that it failed to plead the
essential elements of each cause of action. The learned Prothonotary also found
that the Statement of Claim was nonsensical, in that it failed to disclose any
rational argument based upon material facts or the law.
III. ANALYSIS
[7]
As this is
an appeal of the learned Prothonotary’s judgment, it is one based upon law and
is final as against the Plaintiff. As such, the standard of review of the
learned Prothonotary’s decision is correctness.
[8]
I have
read the Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal in which she alleges 40 errors in the
learned Prothonotary’s judgment which consisted of four paragraphs of legal
findings.
[9]
The hearing
of this matter was somewhat unusual. Issues regarding security raised by the
Defendant were addressed by the Court.
[10]
The
Plaintiff requested, on the Friday preceding the hearing of this appeal and
again at the hearing, an adjournment in order that she could have the Canadian
government provide a translator or alternatively to allow her son, Pradeep
Kumar Verma, to assist her in presenting her case and to provide him with a CTR
or CART interpreter. The Plaintiff also requested the adjournment on the basis that
the Crown was to provide her with a lawyer to assist in the hearing.
[11]
The
Plaintiff also sought an order requiring the Registry to accept a Notice to Admit
and the request for my recusal. There is no merit in either motion. A Notice to
Admit is not one which is filed with the Court. There is no reason for my
recusal.
[12]
As to a
translator for the Plaintiff, there is no evidence of the Plaintiff’s inability
to speak and understand English although it was at times difficult to
understand. The evidence before the Court is that the Plaintiff has signed
numerous documents of a fairly complex nature without any indication of a lack
of ability to read or write English.
[13]
As to the
request for her son to represent or assist her in her representation, that was
denied. Rule 119 of the Federal Courts Rules permits only a person to
appear on their own behalf or with counsel. Further, the Court was advised that
Mr. Verma remains under a guardianship order issued by the Supreme Court of
British Columbia and as such, is under a legal disability. Therefore, Mr. Verma
is in no position to assist the Plaintiff.
[14]
Proceedings
in the Court were adversely affected by the Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the
ruling in respect of representation by having her son type answers to questions
or submissions which the Plaintiff then read, apparently, verbatim.
[15]
The
Defendant’s counsel has advised that to date no proceedings for the declaration
of a vexatious litigant have been undertaken. It is the Court’s view that it
may well be in the public interests for the Defendant to re-visit that issue in
the very near future.
[16]
Lastly, as
to the merits of the appeal, I see no error in the learned Prothonotary’s
conclusions. This appeal is devoid of any merit whatsoever.
IV. CONCLUSION
[17]
Therefore,
this appeal is dismissed with costs for the day at $2,500.00 to be paid
forthwith.
[18]
The motion
for adjournment, the filing of the Notice to Admit and my recusal are also
dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Vancouver, British Columbia
November
4, 2008
Email this Content