Citation: Lazar et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada et al., Date: 20150429 2015 MBCA 45 Docket: AI14-30-08267 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Michel A. Monnin Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron BETWEEN : RADU A. LAZAR and ROBYN G. ) LAZAR (appearing as private individuals) ) R. A. Lazar ) on his own behalf (Plaintiffs) Appellants ) ) M. B. Tait and - and - ) J. N.

Goodridge ) for the Respondents THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ) CANADA, CANADA REVENUE AGENCY ) Appeal heard and and their representative KYLE ) Decision pronounced: KAKOSKE ) April 29, 2015 ) (Defendants) Respondents ) CAMERON J.A. (for the Court): [ 1 ] The appellants, Radu Lazar and Robyn Lazar, each appeal under Rule 62 of the Queen’s Bench Rules (Man. Reg. 555/88) from the order of the appeal judge dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Master striking their statement of claim against the Attorney General of Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA) and a representative of the CRA.

This is the third statement of claim similar in nature brought by the appellants. It alleges that the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional and that the enforcement of it is illegal. It alleges the respondents have committed fraud, invasion of privacy, harassment, intimidation, breach of contract, illegal expropriation, abuse of power and breach of ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . [ 2 ] The appeal judge struck the statement of claim on the basis that it was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, an abuse of process and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

He noted that the appellants “are simply trying to re-litigate issues that have already been decided against them in the earlier actions” and that “[t]he validity of the Income Tax Act is well settled.” [ 3 ] Further, the appeal judge ordered costs on a solicitor-client basis because of the repetitive nature of the arguments advanced by the appellants. [ 4 ] We agree with the appeal judge in all respects. In our view, this appeal is without merit and is dismissed with solicitor-client costs. J.A. J.A. J.A.