Mahoney,
J.:—The
appellant
commenced
an
action
arising
out
of
one
or
more
disputes
with
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
Omitting
the
purely
scurrilous,
paragraph
1
identifies
the
plaintiff
and
paragraphs
2
and
3
allege
that
“false
requests"
were
sent
to
him
in
respect
of
indebtedness
to
the
Department
of
National
Revenue.
Paragraph
4
says
that
he
has
proof
that
he
is
not
indebted
to
the
Department.
Paragraphs
14
through
22
and
paragraph
24
all
allege
that
the
Department
“by
fraud
and
theft
.
.
.
did
steal"
various
amounts
of
money.
Paragraph
23
refers
to
another
“false
request"
whereby
he
was
apparently
denied
a
refund
claimed
by
his
1981
return.
The
remaining
paragraphs
all
allege
injuries
said
to
have
been
suffered
and
seek
various
relief
in
respect
of
injuries
and
outlays
incurred
as
a
result
of
the
Department's
actions.
On
the
respondent's
motion,
the
statement
of
claim
was
entirely
struck
out
by
a
prothonotary
on
the
ground,
inter
alia,
that
it
did
not
allege
facts
in
response
to
which
the
respondent
could
plead.
At
the
same
time
the
appellant's
motion
for
interlocutory
relief
was
dismissed.
Those
decisions
were
sustained
by
the
Associate
Chief
Justice
and
it
is
from
his
judgment
that
this
appeal
is
taken.
We
take
it
that
the
"false
requests"
were
probably
notices
of
assessment
issued
under
the
Income
Tax
Act
and
that
the
thefts
alleged
were
probably
garnishments.
The
appellant
seems
unable
to
grasp
that
the
bare
assertion
of
his
conclusions
as
to
the
nature
of
those
actions
are
not
the
material
facts
which
he
must
plead
if
the
respondent
is
to
be
required
to
answer
his
complaints
in
a
law
suit.
It
follows
that
the
statement
of
claim
does
not
disclose
a
reasonable
cause
of
action
and
that
it
was
properly
struck
out.
In
the
absence
of
a
subsisting
proceeding,
the
interlocutory
relief
had,
of
course,
to
be
refused.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed
with
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content