Date: 20001005
Docket: T-824-00
BETWEEN:
REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI,
REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI, and
REDDY VENKATASUBBARIMI CHAVALI,
Plaintiffs,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO,
and THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL
AND THE FOLLOWING:
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA,
LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
CHARLES HARNICK, W.D. CHILCOT J, J.B. CHADWICK J,
DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM J, PETER A. CUMMING J, DOUGLAS COO J,
ARCHIBALD J, THOMAS J. LOCKWOOD & ASSOCIATES;
NELLIGAN POWER, MARK GEDDES, DAVID CHICK, ARTHUR AULT,
GOWLING, STRATHY & HENDERSON,
ANDRIDGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, GEORGE GATY,
CHATEAU ROYALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING INC.,
LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA, PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC.,
ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA,
THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK, ALLAN O'BRIEN,
JAMES MORTON, JERRY LEVITAN, KANNY NG,
MAJESTIC KEY MANAGEMENT LTD., SAMUEL TALBERT,
COLETTE TALBERT, PIAZZA, BROOKS & SIDDONS,
THE CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF OTTAWA,
SOLMON ROTHBART GOODMAN, ANDRE BLUTEAU,
MONICA CHARLES, FELIX CHARLES and KAY CHARLES,
Defendants.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] On May 9, 2000, the plaintiffs caused to be issued in this Court a lengthy Statement of Claim - 286 paragraphs over 109 pages - against 42 defendants including amongst others Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and in Right of Ontario, the Attorney Generals of Canada and Ontario, the Canadian Judicial Council, 6 judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, law firms, banks and trustees.
[2] The plaintiffs claim damages of 95 000 000 $, punitive damages of 10 000 000 $, interests and costs, as well as numerous declarations and orders from the Court, on allegations that all of the defendants conspired collectively to "destroy the plaintiffs".
[3] The Court is now seized of ten (10) motions in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules 1998 brought by various defendants. While most of the motions object, pursuant to Rule 208, that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised in the Statement of Claim against the defendants, all of them are seeking orders, pursuant to Rule 221, striking the Statement of Claim and dismissing the action as against them, without leave to amend, on the grounds that the action discloses no cause of action or is immaterial, redundant, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.
[4] In response to the motions by the various defendants, the plaintiffs served and filed the Plaintiffs' Responding Motion Record together with a single affidavit by all three of them. This affidavit is 195 pages in length and consist of 463 paragraphs, with an 8-volume Book of Evidence. Having perused this material, this Court is not satisfied that it specifically addresses any of the issues raised by the defendants. Rather, the plaintiffs have moved for an "expeditious trial' of the action or alternatively for a "transfer" to the Federal Court of Appeal, and for an order that the Chief Justice be disqualified and that the immediate past Chief Justice hear the trial.
[5] For the benefit of the plaintiffs who are acting on their own, unrepresented by counsel, it is appropriate to remind them that this Court is a statutory court without inherent jurisdiction. General and inherent jurisdiction rests with the provincial superior courts. In ITO-Int. Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, the Supreme Court of Canada developed a three-pronged test for the determination of the Federal Court jurisdiction. The essential requirements to support a finding of jurisdiction in the Federal Court were established as follows: 1) there must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the federal Parliament; 2) there must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction; 3) the law on which the case is based must be "a law of Canada" as the phrase is used in section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
[6] Furthermore, it is trite law that a Statement of Claim which contains bare allegations or assertions, but no facts upon which to base the assertions, discloses no cause of action and ought to be dismissed. (Vojic v. M.N.R. [1987] 2 C.T.C. 203 (Fed.C.A.)
[7] With respect to the motion on behalf of the defendants The Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Thomas J. Lockwood, Lockwood & Associates, Nelligan Power, Mark Geddes, David Chick, Arthur Ault, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Allan O'Brien, James Morton, Jerry Levitan, Piazza, Brooks & Siddons, Solmon Rothbart Goodman and Andre Bluteau, this Court is satisfied that:
a) the Statement of Claim does not disclose any statutory authority which would confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to entertain a claim against these defendants;
b) there is no existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of this case as against the moving defendants;
c) the allegations against these defendants are based on the laws of the Province of Ontario. Further, the Federal Court Trial Division has no jurisdiction with respect to criminal matters;
d) the Statement of Claim contains bare assertions against the defendants but no facts upon which to base these assertions.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
a) the motion to strike out the Statement of Claim as against the defendants The Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Thomas J. Lockwood, Lockwood & Associates, Nelligan Power, Mark Geddes, David Chick, Arthur Ault, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Allan O'Brien, James Morton, Jerry Levitan, Piazza, Brooks & Siddons, Solmon Rothbart Goodman and Andre Bluteau be granted, without leave to amend;
b) the plaintiffs' claim as against The Law Society of Upper Canada, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, Thomas J. Lockwood, Lockwood & Associates, Nelligan Power, Mark Geddes, David Chick, Arthur Ault, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Allan O'Brien, James Morton, Jerry Levitan, Piazza, Brooks & Siddons, Solmon Rothbart Goodman and Andre Bluteau be dismissed;
c) cost in favour of the defendants.
_________________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
October 5, 2000