Date: 20081202
Docket: T-1081-08
Citation: 2008 FC
1335
Ottawa, Ontario,
December
2, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
DONALD
BAXTER
Applicant
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
I have
before me two motions in this action. In one of them, Mr. Baxter has applied to
the Court for “leave to amend an origination document to include the words
‘simplified action’.” He has brought that motion in writing under Rule 369 of
the Federal Courts Rules, 1998.
[2]
The second
motion is brought by Canada Mortgage and housing Corporation (CMHC) on behalf
of the Crown for an order granting summary judgment to dismiss Mr. Baxter’s
action or, in the alternative and if this matter proceeds as a simplified
action, an order to strike and leave to amend the Crown’s statement of defence
to plead a time-bar to the action.
[3]
Mr. Baxter
is representing himself and appeared before the Court in Winnipeg on November 10, 2008 on his
own behalf. He conducted his case in a most forthright and pleasant way.
[4]
I have
considered both motions together.
[5]
The
matters of which Mr. Baxter complains are standard procedures under the
legislation that governs mortgage lending in this country. At bottom, Mr. Baxter
wants the Court to excuse him from meeting standard obligations because he says
they are unfair. He cites no legal principle or authority that would allow the
Court to grant the relief he seeks.
[6]
The basis
of Mr. Baxter’s claim is summarized in his materials as follows:
3. It is my belief that the actions of
Her Majesty the Queen, while having a legal basis, are arbitrary and unfair and
put the rights of wealthy, multi-national corporations above the rights of
citizens, a situation which should not and cannot exist in a free and
democratic society, brings dishonour to the Crown and puts law above equity.
[7]
Quite how
the standard procedures or the governing legislation bring dishonour to the
Crown and put law above equity is never explained or substantiated. Mr Baxter
simply presents the Court with his opinions and beliefs, some of which reveal a
tenuous understanding of how mortgage lending and mortgage insurance work in Canada.. Mr. Baxter simply wishes
the Court to relieve him of his legal obligations because, in his opinion, they
are unfair. He has provided no legal or factual basis upon which the Court
could grant the relief he seeks in his claim. He makes vague accusations of
unfairness and subterfuge against the Crown but, in the end, he just does not
wish to make the payments to which mortgage borrowers in this country are
subjected when foreclosure occurs. Mr. Baxter made it clear at the hearing that
his sole complaint is with the system itself. He does not think it is fair to
him or other Canadians. He is asking the Court to agree with him that a
national scheme, operated over many years, should not be allowed in a free and
democratic society because he finds himself having to deal with the balance of
his mortgage debt.
[8]
Mr.
Baxter’s personal views of what is unfair and what ought to be tolerated in a
free and democratic society do not constitute a basis in law or equity for the
relief he seeks in his claim. Although I believe he is entirely sincere in the
views he holds, Mr. Baxter’s claim, in a legal sense, is frivolous and
vexatious and discloses no genuine issues for trial.
[9]
That being
the case, in accordance with the Rules governing summary judgment, as recently
articulated in Liu v. Matrikon Inc. 2008 CarswellNat 632 (F.C.) the
Crown’s motion for summary judgment must succeed.
[10]
I have come
to the conclusion that Mr. Baxter’s claim should go no further and that the
Crown should be granted summary judgment. There is no point in Mr. Baxter’s
motion under Rule 369 to amend his pleadings. Even as amended, his claim would
still have no legal or equitable basis, would be frivolous and vexatious and
would disclose no genuine cause of action. In addition, as the Crown points
out, Mr. Baxter’s claim is not exclusively for monetary relief because he
wishes the Court to order that “CMHC be ordered to cease attempting to recover
funds from the Plaintiff.” It does not lend itself to the simplified action
procedure.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1.
The
Crown’s motion for summary judgment in this matter is granted and Mr. Baxter’s
claim is summarily dismissed.
2.
Mr.
Baxter’s motion for an amendment to his pleadings is denied.
3.
The Crown
shall have the costs of both motions.
“James
Russell”
Email this Content