Date: 20120425
Docket: A-295-11
Citation:
2012 FCA 128
Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHEL MAHEUX
Appellant(s)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
and
ANDRÉ FERLAND
Respondent(s)
REASONS FOR ORDER
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1]
This is an appeal from
a decision of the Federal Court dismissing, upon motion to strike, a claim for
damages filed by the appellant against Her Majesty the Queen and André Ferland.
[2]
The appellant is
representing himself, and as is often the case, determining the content of the
appeal book has proved to be a difficult exercise. At the heart of the dispute
between the parties is a Notice of Statutory Set-off (Notice) that had been
filed in connection with the motion to strike the appellant’s claim. By an
agreement on the content of the book, signed by the parties on March 28,
2012, the Notice appears on the list of documents to be included in the appeal
book.
[3]
The parties do not
agree on how this Notice came to be included in the appeal book. The appellant
submits that the respondents were responsible for this. The respondents,
however, reply that they noticed this addition in the email correspondence with
the appellant and agreed to the Notice’s inclusion in the record to place the
debate in its proper context and allow the Court to consider this rarely used
type of document.
[4]
The application for
statutory set-off is based on section 224.1 of the Income Tax Act,
R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1. It is true that this Court has dealt with
only a handful of proceedings based such applications: see Mintzer v. Canada,
[1996] 2 F.C. 146 (C.A.) and Bouchard v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009
FCA 321.
[5]
Having signed the
agreement, the appellant is now filing a motion to add new documents [translation] “proving the falsification of the statutory set-off form”, including
two letters from the respondent André Ferland dating from 2009 and 2010 which
the appellant refers to as [translation] “blackmail letters”. I have examined the
two letters in question. They merely explain the file’s status, ask the
appellant to explain the financial transactions and remind him that, in view of
his refusal to answer the questions, only he can resolve the impasse in the
file.
[6]
At any rate, like the
Notice and the other documents that the appellant wishes to introduce on
appeal, these two letters contribute nothing to the determination of the issue
on appeal. The appellant is unhappy with the inclusion of the Notice. The
respondents, as they write in their motion record, thought they were being
helpful in not objecting to its inclusion. They consent to its removal from the
agreement and propose that this be done. In view of the debate that was
triggered and the fact that the document in question was not filed at trial, I
think it is better in the circumstances to remove it from the agreement.
Paragraph 344(1)(d) of the Federal Courts Rules (Rules)
limits the content of the appeal book to documents filed in first instance that
define the issues in the appeal.
[7]
The respondents rightly
complain of the unfairly acrimonious and vitriolic tone of the appellant’s
motion. Accordingly, should the appellant’s motion be dismissed, they ask that
costs be payable immediately. I agree, and in order to avoid additional
proceedings, I would fix the costs at $350, including disbursements.
[8]
For these reasons, it
will be so ordered:
The appellant’s motion to add new
evidence will be dismissed with costs fixed at $350, including disbursements,
payable immediately to the respondents.
The
documents described in the agreement between the parties, dated March 28,
2012, will be included in the appeal book and filed in the record, with the
exception of the Notice of Statutory Set-off.
In
accordance with paragraph (c) of the Order dated March 20, 2012, of the
Honourable Mr. Justice Mainville of this Court, the Administrator of the
Court will prepare the appeal book on behalf of the appellant.
The
parties shall comply with the time limits set in paragraphs (d) to (f) of
the Order of Justice Mainville.
As
this appeal has already been the subject of a Status Review further to
an order dated February 20, 2012, of the Chief Justice of this Court, the
Honourable Pierre Blais, and as the schedule fixed by Justice Mainville
aims to make up for the time lost because of the appellant’s failure to comply
with the Rules relating to appeals (which failure is attributable to the fact
that he is not represented by counsel and is unfamiliar with the procedural
rules applicable to this case), the failure of the appellant to comply with
this schedule may result in his appeal being dismissed with costs, without further
notice or delay.
“Gilles Létourneau”
Certified true
translation
Michael Palles
Email this Content