JOSEPH BARNES Plaintiff v. HIS MAJESTY THE KING, 2024 FC 212

Date: 20240208 Docket: T-2476-23 Citation: 2024 FC 212 Ottawa, Ontario, February 8, 2024 PRESENT: The Hon. Mr. Justice Henry S. Brown BETWEEN:JOSEPH BARNESPlaintiffandHIS MAJESTY THE KINGDefendant ORDER AND REASONS UPON MOTION by the Defendant under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Federal Courts Rules], for an Orderstriking the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated November 23, 2023, in its entirety pursuant to Rule 221(a), (c), and (

f) of the FederalCourts Rules, without leave to amend, and upon reading the pleadings and proceedings and noting in particular that the Plaintiff declinedto file a Response despite having ample time to do so after having been duly served; AND UPON considering Rule 221(1) of the Federal Courts Rules provides on motion, that the Court may strike out a pleading that"“discloses no reasonable cause of action”" (subparagraph (a)), is "“scandalous, frivolous or vexatious”" (subparagraph (c)) or "“isotherwise an abuse of the process of the Court”" (subparagraph (f)); AND UPON considering Turnbull v Canada, 2019 FC 224 in which I set out the following on motions to strike: [14] In Lee v Canada, 2018 FC 504, at para 7, Heneghan J stated the following in respect of the test for motions to strike: The test upon a motion to strike a pleading is set out in the decision in Hunt v.

Carey Canada Inc., (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, that is whether it is plain and obvious that the pleading discloses no reasonablecause of action. According to the decision in Bérubé v Canada (2009), [2009 FC 43] at paragraph 24, a claimmust show the following three elements in order to disclose a reasonable cause of action i. Allege facts that are capable of giving rise to a cause of action ii. Indicate the nature of the action which is to be founded on those facts, and iii.

Indicate the relief sought, which must be of a type that the action could produce and that the court hasjurisdiction to grant [15] The moving party bears the onus of meeting the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunt v Carey CanadaInc, (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt]: Al Omani v Canada, 2017 FC 786 per Roy J.: [12] The test to strike a claim under Rule 221 sets a high bar. First, it is assumed that the facts stated in thestatement of claim can be proven.

The Court must be satisfied that it is plain and obvious that the pleadingdiscloses no reasonable cause of action assuming the facts pleaded are true: R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.,2011 SCC 42, [2011] 3 SCR 45 at para 17; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc, (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR959 [Hunt] at p 980.

The Defendant bears the onus of meeting this test: Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272, 406 FTR115 [Sivak] at para 25. [13] In Hunt, the Supreme Court sided with the articulation of the rule in England to the effect that “if there is achance that the plaintiff may succeed, then the plaintiff should not be ‘driven from the judgment seat’” (p. 980).A high bar indeed to succeed on a motion to strike. Some chance of success will suffice or, as Justice Estey saidin Att.

Gen. of Can. v Inuit Tapirisat et al, (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735, “(o)n a motion such asthis a court should, of course, dismiss the action or strike out any claim made by the plaintiff only in plain andobvious cases and where the court is satisfied that “the case is beyond doubt” (p.740).

AND UPON noting the Statement of Claim is a matter of public record and having regard to the lack of any response by the Plaintiff tothis motion and having determined the Defendant’s submissions correctly describe the Statement of Claim in a manner with which Isubstantially agree as follows, in connection with which I set out my analysis with the result that the Defendant’s motion will be granted: [1] In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff claims $2,750,500 in damages for "“purchase of my services by His Majesty the King undercontract and with the agreement of the party’s.”" He also asks that the Court "“prevent the Failure of the JOSEPH BENSON BARNESTrust due to lack of trustee.”" [2] The Statement of Claim pleads the following facts, assumptions, and legal conclusions. 1) At the heart of the Plaintiff’s claims is that he is the unwilling subject of a maintenance enforcement order issued by theSupreme Court of Nova Scotia some 17 years ago, in 2007.

He alleges the Province of Nova Scotia made numerous attemptsto collect maintenance and, in 2023, suspended his driver’s license for non-payment. And he seeks relief from the FederalCourt. With respect it is plain and obvious this sort of action is doomed to fail.

[ 3 ] The Plaintiff also pleads that in 2022, he learned that he is the beneficiary of a trust to an " “estate” " held on his behalf by " “all government employees” " , which he has since demanded be transferred to him. He also pleads that he learned in 2022 that he was a party to a contract authorizing the Government of Canada to represent him, which he has now revoked. He implies this contract was formed when he mistakenly declared himself to be a " “citizen of the nation of Canada” " when he applied for a social insurance number.

With respect, it is plain and obvious that these submissions in support of a cause of action are doomed to fail. [ 4 ] I note that at paragraph 6, the Plaintiff explains how these elements fit together to allegedly absolve him of such legal obligation: I learned of the contract between myself and the Government and the duty they have to reply to the Beneficiary as the Trustees.

This was not disclosed to me by any council and voided all court orders and contracts I entered into. [ 5 ] Completely illogically, the Plaintiff claims as a result it is the federal Crown that owes him money by virtue of a series of agreements that he " “unilaterally foisted” " (as the Defendant puts it) on several Crown officers. He pleads the federal Crown owes him $50,000 because his former lawyer " “stole” " his " “equity” " and did not respond to a demand that he " “settle the matter within 72 hours, and if not, he was agreeing to pay the Plaintiff $50,000.

When the lawyer did not reply, the Plaintiff emailed him a “notice of the amount due now and a Certificate of default.” " I fail to see any reasonable cause of action against the Defendant in this respect and conclude this allegation is doomed to fail. [ 6 ] As to the second alleged agreement, the Plaintiff pleads the federal Crown owes him $600,000 because an employee of the Nova Scotia Department of Justice allegedly telephoned him four times " “to collect on the maintenance order.” " The Plaintiff asserts that each phone call gave rise to a debt of $150,000 for " “trespass” " in accordance with a " “price list” " , a document he alleges he distributed setting out fees " “for me to perform orders in the name of the person for His majesty the King.” " This allegation fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendant and I therefore conclude it is doomed to fail. [ 7 ] The Plaintiff further alleges he filed an action in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to collect this $600,000 debt, but his motion for default judgment was dismissed. [ 8 ] The Plaintiff argues all this gave rise to his third alleged agreement under which he alleges the federal Crown owes him $2,100,000 because a Prothonotary of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court did not respond to his demands for information about the rules of service the basis of her, which gave rise to a further ultimatum to the effect he was " “charging the Prothonotary 1 million for discrimination, another million dollars for meddling in my personal matter before the court, placing a note on my file and putting conditions on me to filing an affidavit as well as directly violating the will of the soul investor” " and $100,000 for " “not replying to the beneficiary four times.” " [all sic ] [ 9 ] Having been unsuccessful in bringing a motion for

summary judgment, the Plaintiff claims he abandoned his civil action, " “defaulted His Majesty the King c/o the Attorney General of NS myself” " and filed an " “ex parte application in chambers for an order for the payment of the purchase of my services” " (Case # SH-527885). He announced he was " “invoking a court of record and a court of equity” " and wanted a remedy in the Court of King’s Bench.

On being informed he was in the wrong forum, he concluded that " “the lawyers, governments and courts are colluding to commit fraud against me and my family with no jurisdiction to do so.” " AND UPON CONCLUDING it is plain and obvious that none of the Plaintiff’s claims disclose, either in the particular or in the aggregate, any semblance of a cause of action, and are all doomed to fail, and upon further concluding no part nor the whole of his Statement may be cured by amendment, the Court will grant the Defendant’s motion and strike the action in its entirety without leave to amend.

In addition, the Court in its discretion will grant the Defendant’s request for costs and order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant the all inclusive and reasonable sum of $1000.00 in costs. ORDER in T-2476-23 THIS COURT ORDERS that : 1 . The Statement of Claim is struck in its entirety without leave to amend. 2 . The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the all inclusive sum of $1,000.00 in costs. “Henry S.

Brown” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2476-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH BARNES v HIS MAJESTY THE KING MOTION TO STRIKE CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULES 221 AND 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: BROWN J. DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2024

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY : Joseph Barnes FOR THE PLAINTIFF (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Amy Smeltzer FOR THE DEFENDANT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE DEFENDANT