Minister of National Revenue v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al., (2001) 209 F.T.R. 182 (TD)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 09, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 209 F.T.R. 182 (TD)

MNR v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. (2001), 209 F.T.R. 182 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.022

Her Majesty the Queen (applicant) v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. and Mary David (respondents)

(T-2210-00; 2001 FCT 859)

Indexed As: Minister of National Revenue v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dawson, J.

August 7, 2001.

Summary:

The Minister of National Revenue applied for an order prohibiting David and her company from instituting any further proceedings in court or continuing previously instituted proceedings, without leave of the court.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application.

Editor's Note: For related cases involving the same parties, see 58 F.T.R. 261; 66 F.T.R. 81; 69 F.T.R. 229; 128 F.T.R. 284; 167 F.T.R. 165; [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 271; [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 380; [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 530 and 170 N.R. 281.

Actions - Topic 2602

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Vexatious litigant - What constitutes - In 1987, Olympia was charged with 73 counts under the Excise Tax Act, but all charges were either stayed or withdrawn - Olympia and its principal, David, sued Canada for, inter alia, malicious prosecution, negligence, misfeasance and abuse of authority and conspiracy by Crown servants - They also claimed that their Charter rights were violated - The claims were dismissed - Olympia and David continued to pursue their complaints in the Federal Court and attempted to have the court set aside certificates that had been issued under the Income Tax and Excise Tax Acts - They also instituted proceedings in the courts in Ontario - The Minister of National Revenue applied for an order prohibiting Olympia and David from bringing any further proceedings without leave of the court - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the relief requested, where the steps taken by the plaintiffs constituted persistent institution of vexatious proceedings - See paragraphs 22 to 62.

Practice - Topic 46

Actions - Commencement of - General principles - Bars - Vexatious litigant - [See Actions - Topic 2602 ].

Cases Noticed:

Foy v. Foy (No. 2) (1979), 102 D.L.R.(3d) 342 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Mishra v. Ottawa (City), [1997] O.T.C. Uned. 722 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

Vojic v. Minister of National Revenue, [1992] F.C.J. No. 902 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mishra, [1998] F.C.J. No. 562 (T.D.), affd. [2000] N.R. Uned. 181 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Marcel Grande Cirque Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue (1995), 107 F.T.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (2000), 265 N.R. 90; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rule 81 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Bryan C. McPhadden, for the applicant;

Mary David, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

McPhadden Samac Merner Darling, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Mary David, Orillia, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 9, 2001, before Dawson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on August 7, 2001.