Wilson v. Revenue Canada, (2006) 305 F.T.R. 250 (FC)

• Judge: Barnes, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 21, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 305 F.T.R. 250 (FC);2006 FC 1535

Wilson v. Revenue Can. (2006), 305 F.T.R. 250 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.028

Grant R. Wilson (plaintiff(s)) v. Revenue Canada and Her Majesty the Queen (defendant(s))

(T-2149-05; 2006 FC 1535)

Indexed As: Wilson v. Revenue Canada

Federal Court

Barnes, J.

December 20, 2006.

Summary:

Wilson commenced an action against Revenue Canada in 1999, claiming $60 million in damages and other relief for an alleged illegal seizure of money from his bank account. The action was dismissed. Two reconsiderations and Wilson's application for an extension of time to appeal were also dismissed. Wilson commenced a second action relating to the seizure in 2005. A Prothonotary applied res judicata to dismiss the action. Wilson applied for an extension of time to appeal. Revenue Canada opposed Wilson's application and applied for an order barring Wilson from bringing further proceedings except with the court's leave.

The Federal Court dismissed Wilson's application and allowed Revenue Canada's application.

Editor's note: for a related decision, see [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 827.

Actions - Topic 2602

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Vexatious litigant - What constitutes - Wilson commenced an action against Revenue Canada in 1999, claiming $60 million in damages and other relief for an alleged illegal seizure of money from his bank account - The action was dismissed - Two reconsiderations and Wilson's application for an extension of time to appeal were also dismissed - Several outstanding costs orders against Wilson arose - Wilson commenced a second action relating to the seizure in 2005 - A Prothonotary applied res judicata to dismiss the action - On Wilson's application for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal, Revenue Canada applied for an order barring Wilson from bringing further proceedings except with the court's leave - The Federal Court allowed Revenue Canada's application - Wilson's conduct had fulfilled every characteristic of vexatiousness, including the propensity to relitigate matters that had already been determined against him, making unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety, refusal or failure to abide by court rules or orders, use of scandalous language, refusal or failure to pay costs and failure to pursue litigation on a timely basis - See paragraphs 28 to 32.

Actions - Topic 2607

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Prohibition order - [See Actions - Topic 2602 ].

Estoppel - Topic 377

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - When applicable - Wilson commenced an action against Revenue Canada in 1999, claiming $60 million in damages and other relief for an alleged illegal seizure of money from his bank account - The action was dismissed - Two reconsiderations and Wilson's application for an extension of time to appeal were also dismissed - Wilson commenced a second action relating to the seizure in 2005 - A Prothonotary applied res judicata to dismiss the action - Wilson applied for an extension of time to appeal - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The doctrine of abuse of process by relitigation clearly applied - The only substantive differences between the two actions were vague allegations regarding a 2005 notice of assessment and allegations of misrepresentations by the defendants in connection with the 1999 action - The Prothonotary correctly ruled that the claim regarding the notice of assessment was within the Tax Court's exclusive jurisdiction - Even if the allegations of misrepresentations were sufficient to found a cause of action, they would be subject to action estoppel or abuse of process or both as they predated the dismissal of the 1999 action and should have been raised in that action - See paragraphs 13 to 27.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - [See Estoppel - Topic 377 ].

Practice - Topic 46

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

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of process - [See Estoppel - Topic 377 ].

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - [See Estoppel - Topic 377 ].

Cases Noticed:

Jakutavicius v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 327 N.R. 239; 2004 FCA 289, refd to. [para. 14].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 19].

Sauvé v. Canada, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 497; 2002 FCT 721, refd to. [para. 21].

Dorion v. Roberge et autres, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374; 124 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 81; 78 D.L.R.(4th) 666, refd to. [para. 25].

Foy v. Foy (No. 2) (1979), 102 D.L.R.(3d) 342 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Vojic v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1992] F.C.J. No. 902 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Canada v. Warriner (1993), 70 F.T.R. 8 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Minister of National Revenue v. Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al. (2001), 209 F.T.R. 182; 2001 FCT 859, refd to. [para. 31].

Mascan Corp. v. French (1988), 26 O.A.C. 326; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 434 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Canada Post Corp. v. Varma (2000), 192 F.T.R. 278 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Nelson et al. v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 42; 2002 FCT 77, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Grant R. Wilson, on his own behalf;

Wendy Linden and Maria Vujnovic, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

These motions were heard in London, Ontario, on November 21, 2006, by Barnes, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on December 20, 2006.