Date: 20021015
Docket: T-1883-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 15th day of October 2002
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
RICHARD LAMONTAGNE
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ORDER
The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's action
is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 20021015
Docket: T-1883-00
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 1065
Between:
RICHARD LAMONTAGNE
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is a motion by the defendant-moving party for summary judgment under section 213 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, to dismiss the entire claim set out in the plaintiff-respondent's amended statement of claim.
[2] The plaintiff informed on his employer to the Customs and Revenue Agency, alleging that it had committed tax evasion.
[3] The plaintiff states that the defendant did nothing following the information, and contends that he has suffered damages as a result of the inaction.
[4] Therefore, on October 12, 2000, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for $1,000,000. On November 17, 2000, he amended his statement of claim to increase the damages claimed to $5,000,000. On September 16, 2001, he amended his statement of claim again to increase the amount claimed to $50,000,000.
[5] On October 2, 2001, the defendant conducted an examination for discovery of the plaintiff.
[6] In Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd., [1996] 2 F.C. 853, cited with approval by the Federal Court of Appeal in ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2001 FCA 11, [2001] F.C.J. No. 400 (QL), Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer provided a useful summary of the general principles applicable on a motion for summary judgment:
I have considered all of the case law pertaining to summary judgment and I summarize the general principles accordingly:
1. the purpose of the provisions is to allow the Court to summarily dispense with cases which ought not proceed to trial because there is no genuine issue to be tried (Old Fish Market Restaurants Ltd. v. 1000357 Ontario Inc. et al. [(1994), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 221 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 222]);
2. there is no determinative test (Feoso Oil Ltd. v. Sarla (The) [[1995] 3 F.C. 68 (C.A.)]) but Stone J.A. seems to have adopted the reasons of Henry J. in Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie [(1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 225 (Gen. Div.)] It is not whether a party cannot possibly succeed at trial, it is whether the case is so doubtful that it does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial;
3. each case should be interpreted in reference to its own contextual framework (Blyth [Marine Atlantic Inc. v. Blyth (1994), 77 F.T.R. 97 (F.C.T.D.)] and Feoso [supra]);
4. provincial practice rules (especially Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, [R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194]) can aid in interpretation (Feoso [supra] and Collie [Collie Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Canada, [1996] F.C.J. No. 193 (T.D.) (QL)]);
5. this Court may determine questions of fact and law on the motion for summary judgment if this can be done on the material before the Court (this is broader than Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure) (Patrick [Patrick v. Canada, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1216 (T.D.) (QL)]);
6. on the whole of the evidence, summary judgment cannot be granted if the necessary facts cannot be found or if it would be unjust to do so (Pallman [Pallmann Maschinenfabrik G.m.b.H. Co. KG v. CAE Machinery Ltd. (1995), 62 C.P.R. (3d) 26 (F.C.T.D.)] and Sears [Homelife Realty Services Inc. v. Sears Canada Inc., [1996] F.C.J. No. 51 (T.D.) (QL)]);
7. in the case of a serious issue with respect to credibility, the case should go to trial because the parties should be cross-examined before the trial judge (Forde [Forde v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue, Customs and Excise - MNR), [1995] F.C.J. No. 48 (T.D.) (QL) and Sears [supra]). The mere existence of apparent conflict in the evidence does not preclude summary
judgment; the court should take a 'hard look'at the merits and decide if there are issues of credibility to be resolved (Stokes [Shelburne Marine Ltd. v. Stokes, [1995] F.C.J. No. 1547 (T.D.) (QL)]).
(Emphasis added.)
[7] Having reviewed the plaintiff's amended statement of claim, (bearing in mind the increased amount claimed of $50,000,000), the transcript of his examination for discovery and the parties' submissions, I find that there is no reasonable cause of action, and therefore the action has no chance of succeeding. The plaintiff's pleadings are full of allegations that are confused, vague, incoherent and imprecise, often consisting of nothing more than a mere opinion devoid of material and relevant allegations that could be the basis of a cause of action. At his examination for discovery, the plaintiff took issue with the government for refusing to apply the "Travel Expenses Act". There is no such statute.
[8] Lastly, the plaintiff does not provide any details about the damages of $50,000,000 that he is seeking; he merely indicated at his discovery that he can no longer live within the law. The plaintiff's allegations do not set out any specific facts that could link any fault whatsoever by the defendant or her agents to the considerable and imprecise damages that are claimed.
[9] For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 15, 2002
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1883-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD LAMONTAGNE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 16, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: October15, 2002
APPEARANCES:
RICHARD LAMONTAGNE THE PLAINTIFF ACTING FOR HIMSELF
NADINE PERRON and
RAYMOND PICHÉ FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
RICHARD LAMONTAGNE THE PLAINTIFF ACTING FOR HIMSELF
Sainte-Sophie, Quebec
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario