Date: 20091211
Docket: A-173-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 369
Present: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MR. SAM SHARP
Appellant
and
PASSPORT CANADA,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE CANADA,
MS. MARIE-PIERRE MARTEL,
THE HONOURABLE MINISTERS MR. PETER
MACKAY,
MR. MAXIME BERNIER AND MR. DAVID EMERSON,
MR. STEPHAN MCLAUGHLIN/THE CONSUL,
THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF CANADA,
GUANGZHOU, P.R. CHINA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1]
The
appellant was issued a Notice of Appeal on April 14, 2009 against a decision of
Dawson J. (as she then was) dismissing with costs payable forthwith and in any
event of the cause the appellant’s motion for an order declaring invalid an
order of Prothonotary Lafrenière, dated December 11, 2008. The Prothonotary
ruled the appellant’s two-part motion to declare invalid the motion record
filed by the defendants (respondents) and to obtain judgment by default on his
action moot for the first part, and an abuse of process for the second part.
The appellant challenged the Prothonotary’s decision by way of motion. Dawson J. found that the motion
lacked merit, was duplicative and should not have been brought. It is from this
decision that the present appeal lies.
[2]
The
appellant is self-represented and his appeal has turned into nothing less than
a saga unduly taxing our judicial and administrative resources.
[3]
On April
30, 2009, the appellant sent a Requisition to obtain a few documents to
1. The Chief Administrator of the Federal Courts;
2. The Deputy Chief Administrator;
3. The Regional Director General;
4. The Director, Edmonton Federal Court;
5. Madam Justice Dawson;
6. Madam Justice Hansen; and
7. The Attorney General of Canada.
[4]
On May 20,
2009, he sent another Requisition (this time in relation to the contents of the
Appeal Book) to
1. The Edmonton
Federal Court;
2. The Chief Administrator of the Federal Courts;
and
3. The Deputy Chief Administrator.
[5]
On the
very same day, the Registry Officer provided a response and assistance to the
appellant.
[6]
On June 9,
2009, the appellant filed a new Requisition addressed to the same three persons
mentioned above. This time he required a certified copy of the defendants’
(respondents’) “proof of service on appellant by courier on 04-JUN-2009” and a
certified copy of the courier tracking number of the defendants’ (respondents’)
“proof of service on appellant by courier on 04-JUN-2009”.
[7]
On June
12, 2009, yet another Requisition was filed, addressed to the same persons,
requiring the following:
I REQUIRE:
A certified
copy, in writing, of the reasons why the Federal Court of Appeal prejudiced the
appellant?
A certified
copy, in writing, of why the Registry of the Federal Court of Appeal did not
object to the non-compliances of the defendants’ (respondents’) with the rules
of the Federal Courts Rules, particularly rule 369?
A certified
copy, in writing, of why the Federal Court of Appeal did not comply with the
rules of the Federal Courts Rules, particularly rule 369?
[8]
Other
unnecessary Requisitions of various kinds were filed on June 15, 2009 (two were
filed on that date), June 16, 2009, July 6, 2009, August 20, 2009, August 31,
2009, September 10, 2009, September 16, 2009, September 17, 2009, October 21,
2009 and November 23, 2009. All these requisitions have been answered by the
administrative staff.
[9]
The
appellant has also made a number of useless motions:
a) motion
to determine the content of the appeal book rendered necessary by the
appellant’s inflexibility and lack of cooperation for which the appellant was
condemned to pay costs in the amount of $500.00 payable forthwith and in any
event of the cause (see the Court’s order of July 9, 2009 and the reasons for
order);
b) a
motion for reconsideration of the July 9th order, dismissed with
costs in the amount of $800.00 payable to the respondents forthwith and in any
event of the cause;
c) a motion for a stay dismissed on October 22, 2009
by order of the Court; and
d) another motion for a stay served on November 4,
2009, which is pending before me.
[10]
The
appellant has been ordered to pay costs:
a) on March 27, 2009 ($1,000.00 in file T-1414-08);
b) on April 1, 2009 ($850.00 in file T-1414-08);
c) on July 9, 2009 ($500.00 in file A-173-09); and
d) on September 9, 2009 ($800.00 in file A-173-09).
[11]
By motion,
the respondents sought security for costs of the appeal. By order dated
September 9, 2009, this Court ordered the appellant to pay, within 15 days of
the order, the amount of $7,000.00 into Court or file a bond for the required
amount that has been approved by an order of this Court. In addition, the
appellant was condemned to pay $500.00 as costs of the motion forthwith and in
any event of the cause.
[12]
The
appellant has flouted all the costs orders of this Court although payment was
sought from him. He has also failed to provide the security for costs ordered
by this Court.
[13]
The
behaviour of the appellant amounts to nothing less than an abuse of the process
and of the Court. The time has now come to put an end to this abuse in the
interest of justice.
[14]
For these
reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to
the respondents in the amount of $4,000.00
“Gilles
Létourneau”
“I
agree
Marc
Noël J.A.”
“I
agree
Johanne
Trudel J.A.”
Email this Content