Nelson v. Canada (Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), 2002 FCA 129

Date: 20020405

Docket: A-88-02

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 129

Present:           The Honourable Justice Sharlow

BETWEEN:

                                            THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. NELSON

FOUNDER PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDERS FOR

HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THOSE

IMPROPERLY DENIED BENEFITS

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                 and

                                                        HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

AS REPRESENTED BY THE HON. MARTIN CAUCHON

MINISTER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                      Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

                                     Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 5, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                    SHARLOW J.A.

Date: 20020405

Docket: A-88-02

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 129

Present:           The Honourable Justice Sharlow

BETWEEN:

                                            THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. NELSON

FOUNDER PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC DEFENDERS FOR

HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THOSE

IMPROPERLY DENIED BENEFITS

                                                                                                                                                       Appellant

                                                                                 and

                                                        HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

AS REPRESENTED BY THE HON. MARTIN CAUCHON

MINISTER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]                 On May 29, 2002, the appellant Mr. Nelson filed a statement of claim naming as respondent Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Hon. Martin Cauchon, Minister of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (T-942-00). He alleges criminal activity on the part of government officials in the collection of certain tax debts.

[2]                 A number of interlocutory decisions were made in relation to T-942-00, which resulted in eight appeals to this Court (A-283-01, A-284-01, A-379-01, A-380-01, A-503-01, A-504-01, A-505-01, A-570-01).

[3]                 On October 18, 2001, Rouleau J. made an order in T-942-00:

           (a)        striking out the action because it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,

           (b)        prohibiting Mr. Nelson from filing any documents in T-942-00 for a period of 60 days,

           (c)        permitting Mr. Nelson to appeal his order,

           (d)        requiring the Crown to bring an application under section 40(2) of the Federal Court Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-7, as amended, within 60 days.

[4]                 Section 40 of the Federal Court Act reads as follows:

[5]                 The order of Rouleau J. was appealed (A-634-01).

[6]                 The Crown's application under section 40(2) of the Federal Court Act came before Blais J. He allowed the application by order dated January 23, 2002. The effect of his order is that Mr. Nelson is precluded from instituting any proceeding except with leave of the Court, and

the interlocutory appeals listed above and the appeal of the order of Rouleau J. (A-634-01) cannot be continued except with leave of the Court. The order of Blais J. has been appealed (A-88-02).

[7]                 On March 14, 2002, Mr. Nelson submitted to this Court a notice of motion seeking leave to take certain steps in A-634-01 (the appeal of the order of Rouleau J). The Crown submitted a motion record in response, and Mr. Nelson submitted a reply.

[8]                 At the same time, Mr. Nelson submitted a similar notice of motion in A-88-02. The Crown submitted a similar motion record in response, and Mr. Nelson submitted a similar reply. Mr. Nelson has also submitted an appeal book, a memorandum of fact and law, and a requisition for hearing.

[9]                 In these circumstances it seems to me logical to defer consideration of all motions in A-634-01 until the appeal of the order of Blais J. (A-88-02) is finally resolved.

[10]            Therefore, in respect of Mr. Nelson's motions in A-634-01 submitted March 14, 2002, an order will be made not to file Mr. Nelson's motion record, the Crown's motion record in response or Mr. Nelson's reply. Any copies of those documents should be returned to the parties. The only effect of that order will be to hold A-634-01 in abeyance until A-88-02 is concluded. Depending upon the result in A-88-02, Mr. Nelson may or may not wish to proceed with his motions in A-634-01, or he may wish to take other steps.

[11]            However, Mr. Nelson's motions in A-88-02 as submitted on March 14, 2002 should be considered by the Court. Therefore, the Registry should accept for filing, in A-88-02, Mr. Nelson's motion record, the Crown's motion record in response, and Mr. Nelson's reply. I will now deal with those motions.

[12]            Mr. Nelson's notice of motion requests an oral hearing by conference call. In my view, his motions are most appropriately dealt with on the basis of the written submissions, which are voluminous and thorough. Therefore, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

[13]            In the notice of motion filed in A-88-02, Mr. Nelson seeks a number of orders in relation to both A-634-01 and A-88-02. For the reasons explained above, I will deal with these motions only in so far as they relate to A-88-02.

[14]            Mr. Nelson seeks an order for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Section 37.1 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, gives this Court the jurisdiction to grant such leave. The procedure for seeking leave under that provision is governed by Rule 357. However, a motion under Rule 357 is premature until there is a judgment of this Court that can be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore this motion will be denied, without prejudice to the right of either party to make a new motion under Rule 357 when this Court has rendered a judgment. I would add only that once there is a judgment of this Court, the parties should also consider the more usual procedure, which is to make an application to the Supreme Court of Canada under section 38 of the Supreme Court Act for leave to appeal.

[15]            Mr. Nelson seeks an order permitting him to raise certain constitutional issues. I cannot and do not purport to determine at this stage whether Mr. Nelson has a basis for raising constitutional issues in A-88-02.

[16]            Mr. Nelson seeks an order under Rule 343(5) that the appeal book be prepared by the Administrator. That motion will be granted with respect to A-88-02. As there is a dispute as to the contents of the appeal book, I will determine its contents. I have concluded that the appeal book should contain the following documents:

           (a)        Table of Contents,

           (b)        Notice of Appeal (A-88-02),

           (c)        the order of Blais J. dated January 23, 2002 and the reasons for that order (T-942-00),

           (d)        Motion Record of Defendant dated December 4, 2002 (T-942-00),

           (e)        Motion Record of Plaintiff dated December 14, 2001 filed in opposition to Defendant's motion (T-942-00),

           (f)         Plaintiff's Reply dated January 4, 2002 (T-942-00).

[17]            Mr. Nelson has submitted a form of appeal book that does not contain all of these documents but contains other documents which may be relevant to Mr. Nelson's appeal of the order of Rouleau J. striking his Statement of Claim (A-634-01). This appeal book will not be accepted for filing.

[18]            The appeal in A-88-02 relates only to the order of Blais J. dated January 23, 2002. The fundamental issue in A-88-02 is whether the decision of Blais J. will be allowed to stand. Therefore, there is no basis for including in the appeal book for A-88-02 anything other than the material filed in the application considered by Blais J.

[19]            In particular, I see no reason to include in the appeal book for A-88-02 the record of recorded entries in T-942-00. Mr. Nelson appears to be alleging that the record of recorded entries is inaccurate. However, even if Mr. Nelson is correct on that point and is also correct in asserting that the errors have some bearing on the proceedings in T-942-00, I can see no basis for considering them relevant to the appeal of the order of Blais J. in A-88-02.

[20]            Mr. Nelson has submitted a memorandum of fact and law that contains, not only a memorandum, but copies of many documents. The Crown argues, correctly, that until the appeal books are completed and filed, it is premature to file a memorandum of fact and law. In addition, I cannot determine at this stage whether the documents appended to the memorandum may properly be referred to in argument in relation to A-88-02. Therefore, Mr. Nelson's memorandum will not be accepted for filing.

[21]            Mr. Nelson may serve and file a new memorandum once the appeal books are filed. Mr. Nelson's new memorandum must refer only to material in the appeal books, unless Mr. Nelson first obtains leave to present evidence on appeal (Rule 351). Leave to present evidence on appeal must be sought by notice of motion. The case law relating to Rule 351 indicates that leave to present evidence on appeal is rarely granted. Generally, the Court must be satisfied that the new evidence is relevant, is practically conclusive of an issue on appeal, and could with due diligence have been presented to the Court below.

[22]            Mr. Nelson wishes to file a requisition for hearing. That motion must be denied. The requisition for hearing cannot be dealt with until all appeal books and memoranda are filed. At that time, Mr. Nelson must consult with counsel for the Crown before completing and submitting the requisition.

[23]            Finally, Mr. Nelson seeks costs of $800,000 to be paid forthwith. There is no basis for awarding costs at this stage, much less costs in the stated amount. This motion will be denied.

[24]            The Crown seeks costs of this motion in the amount of $300 payable forthwith, on the basis that this motion is frivolous. This motion is not frivolous. On the contrary, it has served the salutary purpose of permitting this matter to proceed reasonably expeditiously. No costs will be awarded in this motion.

[25]            These reasons apply to both A-634-00 and A-88-02 and a copy of these reasons will be included in both files.

"K. Sharlow"

J.A.