2018 FC, 2018 FC 1055

Date: 20181023 Docket: T-1132-18 Citation: 2018 FC 1055 Ottawa, Ontario, October 23, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell BETWEEN: OKSANA NEVOSTRUYEVA Plaintiff and MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP Defendant ORDER AND REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] On June 11, 2018, the self-represented Plaintiff filed a " “Statement of Claim to the Defendant” " (Statement of Claim). The Plaintiff’s claim allegedly arises from a letter received by her from an agent of the Defendant dated July 24, 2017.

The purpose of the letter was to respond to enquiries made by the Plaintiff regarding the rejection of her application for permanent resident status. I note here that the Plaintiff brought no application for judicial review as a result of the rejection of her permanent resident application. [ 2 ] In paragraph 2 of her Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff contends she was subjected to " “special treatment” " by Canadian officials. No particulars of that special treatment are offered. [ 3 ] In paragraph 3 of her Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff makes an effort to particularize her special treatment.

She first sets out that the special treatment is " “not an essence of this case” " , rather, its essence, according to her, is the " “discriminatory policies implemented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Ahmed Hussen”. " I consider the Plaintiff’s efforts at particularization in paragraph 3 to be nothing short of bald assertions.

Particulars of the allegedly discriminatory policies of the Prime Minister or the Defendant are not provided. [ 4 ] In paragraph 4 of her Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff appears to broaden the basis of her claim beyond the contents of the July 24, 2017 letter by contending the claim concerns " “one of many episodes of discrimination, selective treatment and illegal attitude applied towards” " her and her family over the course of the past 16 years. Regrettably, the Plaintiff does not refer to any incidents that occurred over the course of those 16 years, other than the receipt of the impugned letter.

Once again, this paragraph contains only bald assertions. [ 5 ] In paragraph 5 of her Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff describes the consequences which followed the receipt by her of the alleged false and misleading information set out in the impugned letter. She does not particularize the nature of that false and misleading information.

To the extent the false and misleading information appears to be particularized later in the pleadings, paragraph 5 is, at best, redundant. [ 6 ] Following paragraph 5, the Plaintiff makes an attempt at particularization of her claim under three broad titles which are found in paragraphs 10 to 18. They are: I. Evasion of Legal Duties; II. Misrepresentation and Withholding of Information; and III. Lie. [ 7 ] Under the title Evasion of Legal Duties , the Plaintiff sets out, in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12, her understanding of the duties incumbent upon the Defendant.

She contends he has " “neglected” " to properly fulfil these duties. It can be logically inferred from the pleading that the Plaintiff is referring to the Defendant’s alleged neglect of duty in relation to the management of her claim for permanent resident status. [ 8 ] The allegations set out by the Plaintiff in paragraphs 13 and 14, under the title Misrepresentation and Withholding of Information are clearly limited to the Defendant’s references in the impugned letter to the fact that judicial review is available to the Plaintiff in such circumstances.

No cause of action arises from the furnishing of such information, even if the comments are provided ex post facto the deadline for filing a judicial review application. [ 9 ] In paragraphs 15 to 18 of her Statement of Claim, under the title Lie, the Plaintiff asserts the Defendant lied to her regarding the just and non-discriminatory nature of the Canadian immigration system.

While her efforts at particularizing this allegation are clearly prolix, one can summarize those efforts by noting that the Plaintiff contends the discrimination against her, based upon the colour of her skin, demonstrates the alleged untruthfulness of the Defendant’s assertion set out in the letter. [ 10 ] The Defendant did not file and serve a Statement of Defence within the time prescribed by the Rules . Instead, he filed the within motion on July 19, 2018 in which he seeks the following relief: a . An order extending the time for serving and filing the motion to July 19, 2018; b .

An order striking out the Statement of Claim filed on June 11, 2018, in its entirety, without leave to amend; c . In the alternative, an order extending the time allowed for service and filing of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence for a period of 30 days from the date of the Court’s order in the within motion; and

d. Such further and other relief as this Court may deem just. II. Analysis [11] It is settled jurisprudence that allegations of misrepresentation and fraud must contain particulars (Federal Courts Rules, SOR 98-106, Rule 181; Merchant Law Group v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 at paras 34-35, 321 D.L.R. (4th) 301). [12] The Defendant contends he failed to file his Statement of Defence or the within motion within the time required due to theinadvertence of counsel. The extension required is minimal. The issues to be addressed are potentially serious for both the Plaintiff andthe Defendant.

The Plaintiff has not, despite directions from Mr. Justice Pentney on August 4, 2018 and from me on August 24, 2018,filed a Rules complaint response to the Notice of Motion. The Plaintiff did not seek default judgment under Rule 210. Given thePlaintiff’s failure to respond to the Notice of Motion in accordance with the Rules and her failure to seek default judgment, I am satisfiedshe would not be prejudiced by the extension of time sought. Furthermore, the Court is hesitant to prejudice a client due to theinadvertence of his or her counsel (Lubrizol Corp. v.

Imperial Oil Ltd., (FCA), [1996] 3 FC 40 at para. 23, 197 N.R.241). As a result, the Court will grant the extension of time sought by the Defendant. [13] As indicated, the Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. Her Statement of Claim is far from an example of clarity in the drafting ofpleadings. That said, I am not prepared to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety. I have taken the time in my opening observationsto set out the essence of the allegations made by her. Some of those allegations clearly do not meet the basic requirements of pleadingsand should be struck.

They are variously redundant, vexatious and may delay the fair trial of the action: Rule 221(1). I consider thefollowing paragraphs in the Statement of Claim to meet one or more of those bases for being struck: paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, and17. [14] In his motion, the Defendant requests, in the alternative, an extension of time for service and filing of the Statement of Defence. Inthe circumstances, I consider this request reasonable. III. Conclusion [15] There will be an order as set out below. ORDER in T-1132-18 THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1.

The time for serving and filing the within Notice of Motion is extended to July 19, 2018; 2. Paragraphs 2,3, 4,5,6, 13, 14 and 17 be and are hereby struck from the Statement of Claim; 3. The Defendant shall file a Statement of Defence to the Statement of Claim as modified by this Order on or before November 23,2018; and 4. Costs shall be in the cause. "B.

Richard Bell" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-1132-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: OKSANA NEVOSTRUYEVA v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEESAND CITIZENSHIP MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURUSANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTSRULES ORDER AND REASONS: BELL, J.

DATED: OCTOBER 23, 2018 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Oksana Nevostruyeva self-represented Gabrielle White For The Defendant SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Oksana Nevostruyeva SELF-REPRESENTED Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Defendant