Simpson
J.T.C.C.:
—
Let
the
attached
transcript
of
my
Reasons
for
Order
delivered
orally
from
the
Bench
in
Toronto,
Ontario,
the
6th
day
of
November,
1995,
now
edited,
be
filed
to
comply
with
section
51
of
the
Federal
Court
Act.
In
this
action,
the
plaintiff,
who
represents
herself,
seeks
declarations
intended
to
prevent
the
federal
government
from
functioning
in
tandem
as
a
tax
litigator
and
as
a
tax
collector
in
relation
to
an
individual
taxpayer.
The
plaintiff
also
seeks
damages
for
mental
distress
arising
out
of
the
government’s
handling
of
her
tax
arrears.
The
action
is
now
described
in
an
amended
Statement
of
Claim
dated
October
26,
1995.
It
is
composed
of
the
original
Statement
of
Claim
and
a
new
appended
document
entitled
“Particulars”.
Two
motions
are
before
me
in
the
context
of
this
action:
Firstly,
the
defendant
seeks
an
order
striking
out
the
amended
Statement
of
Claim
as
disclosing
no
cause
of
action.
Secondly,
the
plaintiff
seeks
a
stay
of
the
government’s
tax
collection
procedures
in
the
event
that
her
action
survives
the
defendant’s
motion
to
strike
it
out.
Motion
to
Strike
I
have
reviewed
the
amended
Statement
of
Claim
carefully
in
light
of
the
relevant
case
law.
I
have
assumed
that
the
facts
pleaded
are
true
and
have
taken
account
of
the
fact
that
the
pleading
was
not
prepared
by
a
solicitor.
With
these
matters
in
mind,
I
have
looked
only
for
the
bare
essentials
of
a
justiciable
claim.
My
conclusion
is
that
the
bare
essentials
are
not
present
and
that
the
amended
Statement
of
Claim
does
not
disclose
a
cause
of
action.
Paragraph
16
of
the
Particulars
indicates
that
the
claim
is
asserted
on
three
bases:
(i)
the
doctrine
of
legitimate
expectation;
(ii)
the
principles
arising
from
the
case
of
Hedley
Byrne
&
Co.
v.
Heller
&
Partners
Ltd.,
[1964]
A.C.
465,
[1963]
2
All
E.R.
575
(H.L.)
(“Hedley-Byrne”);
and
(iii)
abuse
of
discretion.
I
will
deal
with
each
in
turn.
(i)
Legitimate
Expectation
The
plaintiff
relies
on
a
document
called
the
Declaration
of
Taxpayers’
Rights
(“the
Declaration”).
It
is
found
at
Exhibit
A
to
the
affidavit
of
the
plaintiff
sworn
on
October
26,
1995.
It
provides
that
taxpayers
are
entitled
to
the
benefit
of
a
reasonable
effort
on
the
government’s
part
to
provide
them
with
information
about
the
Income
Tax
Act,
S.C.
1970-71-72,
c.
63
It
also
states
that
taxpayers
are
to
be
treated
courteously
and
impartially
and
that
they
are
entitled
to
be
presumed
honest
in
the
absence
of
evidence
to
the
contrary.
The
plaintiff
denies
receiving
the
treatment
promised
by
the
declaration
and
for
the
purposes
of
this
motion,
as
I
have
said,
I
accept
her
allegations.
The
declaration
is
not
a
meaningless
document
and,
in
a
proper
case,
breaches
may
cause
a
Court
to
issue
orders
correcting
procedural
deficiencies.
However,
the
doctrine
of
legitimate
expectation
does
not
create
substantive
rights
of
the
kind
which
can
support
claims
for
damages
and
declarations
of
the
sort
requested
by
the
plaintiff
in
this
case.
(ii)
Hedley-Byrne
The
Statement
of
Claim
does
not
include
a
coherent
description
of
a
duty
of
care.
As
well,
the
alleged
negligent
misrepresentations
are
not
clearly
spelled
out.
Further,
there
are
no
allegations
of
detrimental
reliance
in
respect
of
any
of
the
alleged
misrepresentations.
(iii)
Abuse
of
Discretion
I
am
not
prepared
to
say
that
such
abuses,
even
if
properly
pleaded,
would
support
the
plaintiff’s
present
action.
However,
the
facts,
as
pleaded,
are
not
sufficient
to
indicate
that
abuses
of
discretion
have
occurred
or
that
they
had
any
meaningful
impact
on
the
plaintiff.
The
Motion
to
Stay
This
motion
is
without
merit
and
will
be
dismissed.
Conclusion
The
Statement
of
Claim
will
be
struck
out
without
leave
to
amend.
As
well,
the
plaintiff’s
motions
for
a
stay
of
collection
proceedings
will
be
dismissed.
The
Crown’s
motion
was
granted.
The
taxpayer's
motion
was
dismissed.
Email this Content