Rouleau,
J.:—This
motion
came
before
me
at
Vancouver
on
September
9,
1991.
The
defendant
is
seeking
to
strike
the
plaintiff's
statement
of
claim
pursuant
to
Rule
419
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules.
He
argued
that
the
notice
of
appeal
filed
by
way
of
a
statement
of
claim
with
the
Registry
of
the
Federal
Court
in
Vancouver
in
August
of
1989
was
defective
and
therefore
the
plaintiff
is
prescribed
from
proceeding
any
further
in
this
matter.
It
should
be
noted
at
the
outset
that
this
plaintiff
does
not
have
the
benefit
of
counsel
and
is
acting
on
his
own
behalf.
During
the
course
of
argument,
the
plaintiff
produced
a
document
which
was
not
in
the
regular
form
but
on
which
was
written
that
it
was
a
statement
of
claim;
in
the
top
right
hand
corner
it
was
indicated
that
he
was
appealing
his
income
tax
assessments
for
the
years
1986,
1987
and
1988
and
that
it
would
nave
been
filed
with
the
Court
on
August
2,
1989.
Striking
a
statement
of
claim
pursuant
to
section
419
of
the
Federal
Court
Rules
on
the
basis
that
the
plaintiff
is
prescribed
is
not
sufficient
grounds.
The
Court
of
Appeal
in
the
unreported
decision
of
Kibale
v.
The
Queen,
A-1221-88,
wrote,
and
I
paraphrase,
that
to
plead
limitations
as
a
defence
is
not
of
itself
sufficient
grounds
to
strike
a
cause
of
action;
it
provides
a
defendant
with
a
procedural
defence
that
he
may
plead.
There
is,
as
the
Court
of
Appeal
wrote,
no
obligation
on
a
plaintiff
when
drafting
a
statement
of
claim
to
allege
all
facts
to
indicate
that
an
action
was
taken
within
the
limitation
period.
He
may,
at
his
option,
wait
for
the
defendant's
pleadings
and
provide
answers
to
offset
the
alleged
defence
of
prescription.
This
plaintiff
appeared
before
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
and
a
decision
was
rendered
on
May
29,
1989
in
which
it
ruled
that
his
appeals
were
quashed.
The
original
document
which
he
alleges
he
attempted
to
file
with
the
Court
may
not
have
been
in
the
proper
form
but
evidence
may
eventually
disclose
that
it
was
submitted
within
the
prescribed
time.
A
more
formal
statement
of
claim
was
filed
in
May
of
1991
but
I
am
of
the
view
that
a
trial
judge
should
determine
whether
or
not
the
document
dated
August
2,
1989
should
be
considered
sufficient
notice
to
maintain
standing.
The
application
to
strike
is
dismissed.
Costs
in
the
cause.
Application
dismissed.
Email this Content