2023 FC, 2023 FC 1201

Date: 20230906 Docket: T-1446-23 Citation: 2023 FC 1201 Vancouver, British Columbia, September 6, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lafrenière BETWEEN:MINGMING WANGPlaintiff/ Responding PartyandHIS MAJESTY THE KINGDefendant/ Moving Party REASONS AND ORDER [1] On July 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim seeking general and punitive damages totalling over $500,000.00 againstthe Defendant, His Majesty the King. [2] The Attorney General of Canada now moves on behalf of the Defendant for an order striking out the Statement of Claim, withoutleave to amend, pursuant to paragraphs 221(1)(a), (

c) and (

f) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules]. Alternatively, theDefendant seeks an order granting an extension of time to serve and file a statement of defence. [3] For the reasons set out below, the motion to strike is granted. I. Test for striking pleadings [4] The motion to strike is based on three separate grounds: (

a) that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (Rule221(1)(a)); that the pleading is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious (Rule 221(1)(c)), and that it is otherwise an abuse of the process ofthe Court (Rule 221(1)(f)). [5] There is no dispute as to the test for striking pleadings under Rule 221(1)(a). A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious,assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC69, [2003] 3 SCR 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959, at p. 980. In deciding a Rule221(1)(

a) motion, the Court must read the statement of claim generously in favour of the plaintiff, with allowance for draftingdeficiencies. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial. [6] Rule 221(1)(

c) authorizes the Court to strike pleadings when they are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Scandalous pleadingsinclude those that improperly cast a derogatory light on someone’s moral character. A frivolous claim is one for which there is norational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of the claim. A vexatious claim is one that does not sufficiently reveal thefacts on which a plaintiff’s cause of action is based such that the defendant will be unable to answer it: Carten v.

Canada, 2010 FC 857at paras 33-34. [7] Finally, making bald, conclusory allegations of bad faith or abuse of power without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse of processwithin the meaning of Rule 221(1)(f): Merchant Law Group v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 [Merchant Law] at para 34. II. Allegations in the Statement of Claim [8] The Plaintiff’s claim is said to be based on tort law. The genesis of the claim is the Plaintiff’s application for Employment Insurance[EI] benefits after they were "“separated”" from employment in 2021.

It is alleged that the Plaintiff’s application was not approved byEmployment and Social Development Canada [ESDC], but was ultimately granted following an appeal to the Social Security Tribunal[SST].

It is further alleged that there was some delay in payment of EI benefits following the SST’s decision, and that the Plaintiffsuffered loss as a result, in particular the loss of tax benefits arising from a contribution to the Plaintiff’s Registered Retirement SavingsPlan. [9] The pleading contains a wide range of allegations of misconduct against various public servants, including making a "“falsestatement”" to reject the Plaintiff’s EI claim, racial discrimination, "“double standards on information transparency,”", and violation ofthe Plaintiff’s

section 7 Charter rights. III. No reasonable cause of action is disclosed

[ 10 ] The Crown submits that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action as it does not plead the required material facts. This argument is well founded. [ 11 ] Rule 174 requires pleadings to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which a party relies to establish their claim. Further, Rule 181(1) requires particulars of every allegation, including of any alleged fraud, breach of trust, malice or fraudulent intention.

These two fundamental rules of pleading must be followed to achieve the mandated objective of Rule 3, which is “to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.” Procedural fairness requires that the opposing side know with sufficient certainty what is in issue in order to properly defend itself. [ 12 ] On a motion to strike under paragraph 221(1)(a), only the statement of claim itself is considered. It stands or falls on its own.

The role of the Court is not to assess the potential evidence nor to predict whether the plaintiff will succeed in proving the allegations of the statement of claim. This is reinforced by a prohibition on admitting evidence on certain categories of motions to strike: Rule 221(2).

Accordingly, I have disregarded the Plaintiff’s affidavit, and any reference in their written representations to such evidence, in my analysis of the ground based on paragraph 221(1)(a). [ 13 ] The Statement of Claim recites a variety of exchanges by the Plaintiff with employees of ESDC and the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] and asserts that these interactions arise to the level of misfeasance, bad faith and racial discrimination.

However, the allegations are nothing more than general assertions supported by conclusory statements. [ 14 ] By way of example, the Plaintiff alleges that “Service Canada employee had serious misconducts including made false statement to reject my EI.” The claim is wholly deficient, as it does not identify any specific action taken by any employee that could be viewed as misconduct, other than a bald statement that a false statement was made.

While it may be possible for the Crown to identify the individual or individuals who were involved in processing the Plaintiff’s EI application, the Statement of Claim does not provide any material facts as to when the statement was made, in what context the statement was made, what was actually stated, what is alleged to be false in the statement, or how the statement resulted in damage to the Plaintiff. [ 15 ] It is trite law that a false statement is not actionable as a tort unless it is wilfully false. No such allegation is made.

If however the Plaintiff is claiming that there was a negligent misrepresentation, they would be required to prove that the employee acted negligently in making the misrepresentation and that the Plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation to their detriment. These facts are missing from the Statement of Claim. In any event, I note that such a claim would have no reasonable prospect of success because even if an incorrect statement was made, the Plaintiff clearly did not rely on it.

The Plaintiff instead appealed to the SST and then contacted public officials to seek amendments to their income tax form and the expeditious payment of their EI benefits. [ 16 ] The Statement of Claim similarly fails to plead sufficient material facts giving rise to misfeasance in public office.

To plead misfeasance in public office, a plaintiff must identify who is allegedly responsible and their state of mind - in other words, facts showing that the conduct was deliberate and the public officer knew their conduct was inconsistent with the obligations of their office and likely to harm the plaintiff: Merchant Law at para 35. Particularization of the public officer’s state of mind is also required under Rule 181(1) (b). None of these essential elements are pleaded. [ 17 ] As for the allegation of violation of the Plaintiff’s

section 7 Charter rights, the Plaintiff has not particularized which right was allegedly deprived in this case (life, liberty, or security of the person) or which principle of fundamental justice is applicable. Once again, the claim is simply a conclusory statement, without any underlying facts. [ 18 ] Finally, the Plaintiff baldly alleges that the employee who rejected their EI claim “committed racial discrimination.” This claim comes out of the blue. There are facts pleaded suggesting that any discrimination took place, let alone that race was even a consideration.

This leaves both the Defendant and the Court to speculate as to how this claim could support a legal argument. [ 19 ] For the above reasons, I conclude that the Statement of Claim should be struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. However, for the sake of completeness, I will briefly address the other two grounds raised by the Defendant. IV.

The pleading is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process [ 20 ] The Statement of Claim alleges that various EDSC, CRA or other officials committed racial discrimination, misfeasance, made a false statement, and violated the Plaintiff’s right to life, liberty or security of the person. It also states: “Punitive damage needs some basic elements, such as dishonesty, intent to harm, misconduct is malicious. The situation I met 100% fall into this category.” [ 21 ] I agree with the Defendant that these are serious claims, made without a scintilla of supporting material facts.

The Statement of Claim is replete with inflammatory language that seems to serve no purpose other than possibly to embarrass the Defendant’s defence and unfairly attack the moral character of public servants.

Making bald, conclusory allegations of dishonesty and malice without any factual foundation is not only scandalous and vexatious, but also an abuse of process. [ 22 ] While the Plaintiff may rightly be frustrated by the delay in processing their EI benefits payment and the great inconvenience of having to amend their income tax information, these are all normal consequences of dealing with separate federal departments, operating with different priorities, resources and pressures. V.

Conclusion [ 23 ] In short, the Plaintiff’s pleadings are so deficient in factual material and causes of action that the Defendant cannot answer them. The Statement of Claim is also scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of the Court’s process. For these reasons, the Statement of

Claim should be struck in its entirety under either Rules 221(1)(a), (

c) and (f). [ 24 ] Further, I agree with the Defendant that the deficiencies of the claim, including the Plaintiff’s attempt to raise issues and seek remedies that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada or that should have been brought by way of judicial review, go to the very root of the Plaintiff’s claim and are not curable by amendment. ORDER IN T-1446-23 THIS COURT ORDERS that : 1. The Statement of Claim is struck out, without leave to amend. 2. Costs of the motion, hereby fixed in the amount of $510.00, shall be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Blank “Roger R.

Lafreniѐre” Blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1446-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: MINGMING WANG v HIS MAJESTY THE KING MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES REASONS AND ORDER: LAFRENIÈRE J. DATED: September 6, 2023 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : Mingming Wang on THEIR own behalf Alicia Blimkie For The Defendant/ MOVING PARTY SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Defendant/ MOVING PARTY