Walsh,
DJ.:—Defendant
moves
to
strike
out
plaintiff's
statement
of
claim,
together
with
a
finding
that
the
proceedings
are
"
vexatious"
within
the
meaning
of
section
67
of
the
Supreme
Court
Act,
R.S.B.C.
1979,
c.
379
and
amendments
thereto,
and
a
direction
to
the
taxing
officer
that
he
allow
300
per
cent
of
the
sums
set
out
in
the
tariff
and
to
allow
for
junior
counsel
where
junior
counsel
appeared.
The
proceedings
deal
with
notices
of
reassessment
dated
March
17,
1988
for
plaintiff's
1982,
1984,
1985
and
1986
taxation
years,
dealing
with
expenses
claimed
by
him
as
attributed
to
development
of
a
scientific
research
business.
A
seizure
was
made
entitled
a
"Requirement
to
Pay”
dated
May
10,1990
to
the
Canadian
Imperial
Bank
of
Commerce
in
the
amount
of
$52,174.49
which
plaintiff
claims
exceeds
the
amount
owing.
There
was
an
action
before
Justice
Sarchuk
of
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada
in
which
according
to
plaintiff
on
August
15,
1985
an
undertaking
was
given
by
counsel
for
defendant
to
make
a
refund
of
$1,000
and
interest.
Plaintiff
claims
ten
years'
interest
would
now
be
due
on
this.
Counsel
for
defendant
at
that
hearing
denies
that
any
such
undertaking
was
given.
Plaintiff
refers
to
another
decision
of
Justice
Collier
in
T-1701-87
for
the
1984,
1985
and
1986
taxation
years
in
which
he
has
allegedly
not
exhausted
all
avenues
of
appeal.
His
motion
for
an
injunction
accompanying
the
statement
of
claim
seeking
an
order
to
withdraw
the
requirement
to
pay
directed
to
the
bank
and
to
refund
with
interest
the
sum
of
$1,000
as
agreed
to
was
adjourned
sine
die
by
Justice
MacKay
on
June
12,
1990
to
be
returned
upon
notice
in
accord
with
Rule
321.1(2).
Another
affidavit
in
the
file
indicates
that
a
credit
of
$1,059.36
was
applied
October
29,1986
to
the
1982
taxation
year
and
additional
interest
of
$390.20
was
credited
on
August
21,
1987
pursuant
to
the
order
of
Justice
Collier
in
1-1839-86.
Defendant
did
file
a
defence
without
at
that
time
making
a
motion
to
strike.
It
refers
to
orders
made
in
T-1839-86,
the
judgment
of
Justice
Sarchuk
in
85-120(IT)
and
85-658(IT)
and
to
another
action
T-2165-85
now
pending
in
this
Court
in
support
of
the
allegation
that
the
present
action
is
a
"vexatious
legal
proceeding”
within
the
meaning
of
the
Supreme
Court
Act
(B.C.),
and
the
request
for
the
extraordinary
direction
as
to
costs
both
of
which
are
now
renewed
in
the
present
motion.
At
the
hearing
plaintiff
stated
that
the
situation
had
changed
substantially
since
the
motion
was
made.
The
Department
has
now
reviewed
his
said
tax
returns
in
more
detail
with
respect
to
the
scientific
research
credit
claims
and
carrying
forward
of
losses
with
a
view
to
a
further
reassessment.
Plaintiff
contends
that
without
this
action
defendant
would
never
have
examined
the
assessments
further,
as
has
now
been
done,
so
that
it
is
a
useful
proceeding.
He
further
contends
that
he
is
still
suffering
serious
prejudice
in
his
business
which
is
rapidly
expanding
as
because
of
the
garnishment
which
he
seeks
to
have
lifted
he
cannot
borrow
from
the
bank.
While
if
plaintiff's
optimistic
assessment
of
the
present
situation
indicating
that
his
contentions
are
now
being
recognized
by
the
Department
and
the
matter
is
nearly
settled
would
indicate
that
the
present
proceedings
are
moot
or
nearly
so,
counsel
for
defendant
indicates
that
there
are
a
number
of
issues
unsettled,
and
wishes
a
decision
in
this
motion.
The
multiplicity
of
actions,
at
least
one
of
which
is
still
pending,
dealing
with
the
same
taxation
issue,
have
led
to
considerable
confusion,
and
it
would
not
be
appropriate
in
this
motion
to
examine
all
of
them.
There
are
two
methods
of
dealing
with
it.
One
would
be
to
adjourn
it
sine
die
in
the
hope
that
by
the
time
it
came
up
again
all
matters
in
issue
would
have
been
settled.
The
other,
which
defendant's
counsel
prefers
is
to
grant
the
motion
to
strike
(although
modified
as
I
am
not
disposed
to
grant
the
second
and
third
conclusions
sought,
applying
the
British
Columbia
rule
respecting
"vexatious
legal
proceedings"
or
asking
for
what
is
in
effect
punitive
costs),
subject
to
plaintiff's
right
to
produce
an
amended
statement
of
claim
at
some
future
time
if
deemed
necessary,
dealing
precisely
with
the
situation
existing
at
that
time.
This
is
what
I
propose
to
do.
On
defendant's
motion
to:
a)
Strike
out
the
Statement
of
Claim
herein
as
disclosing
no
course
of
action;
b)
Declare
that
the
Plaintiff's
proceeding
herein
has
been
a
"vexatious
legal
proceeding"
within
the
meaning
of
section
67
of
the
Supreme
Court
Act,
R.S.B.C.
1979
c.
379
and
amendments
thereto;
c)
Order
that
the
Plaintiff
pay
costs,
to
be
taxed,
and
direct
that
the
taxing
officer
allow
up
to
300%
of
the
sums
set
out
in
Tariff
and
to
allow
for
junior
counsel
where
junior
counsel
appeared.
It
ls
Hereby
Ordered
(a)
Plaintiff's
statement
of
claim
is
struck
as
disclosing
no
course
of
action,
at
present,
subject
to
his
right
to
produce
in
future,
if
desired,
an
amended
notice
of
motion,
precisely
dealing
with
the
situation
at
that
time.
(b)
Paragraphs
(b)
and
(c)
are
not
granted:
Costs
in
favour
of
defendant
taxed
in
usual
way.
Appeal
allowed
in
part.
Email this Content