2016 QCCA 1579, 2016 QCCA 1579
Opinion
Orsini c. Canada (Revenue Agency) 2016 QCCA 1579 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026102-160 (755-17-002315-151) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 26, 2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE julie dutil , J.A. mark schrager , J.A. étienne parent , J.A. APPELLANT DINO ORSINI IN PERSON RESPONDENT COUNSEL CANADA REVENUE AGENCY Mtre LISA MORENCY (Attorney General of Canada) On appeal from a judgment rendered on April 26, 2016 by the Honourable Justice Michel Déziel of the Superior Court, District of Iberville DESCRIPTION : Application to dismiss an appeal (Article 365 C.C.P.)
Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:48 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 9:48 Mtre Morency has nothing to add to her motion. 9:48 Submissions by Mr. Orsini. 9:52 Recess. 9:55 Resumption of the hearing. 9:55 By the Court: judgment – see page 3.
Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Appellant’s claim for moral and punitive damages against Respondent was dismissed by the Superior Court, District of Iberville (the Honourable Michel Déziel), on April 26, 2016 because of the doctrine of res judicata. [ 2 ] As the judge explained, it is not open for Appellant to bring the same lawsuit a second time. Appellant had initially sued Respondent for damages arising from the same facts in 1999. The action was dismissed on the merits by judgment of the Superior Court in 2012 which was confirmed by this Court in 2014.
Leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada. The additional allegation of future damages to those alleged in the past does not change the fact that the lawsuit is the same as the one dismissed in 2012. [ 3 ] The judge also dismissed Appellant’s action because it was time barred or prescribed under the provision of Section 83 (1) of the Excise tax Act, RSE 1985, c.-11. [ 4 ] There is nothing in Appellant’s notice of appeal that could overcome these findings so that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 5 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal; [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal, the whole with legal costs. JULIE DUTIL, J.A.
MARK SCHRAGER, J.A. ÉTIENNE PARENT, J.A.
Loading document…