T-5963-81
Gary P. Sorenson (Plaintiff)
v.
Tax Review Board and Minister of National
Revenue (Defendants)
Trial Division, Mahoney J.—Ottawa, April 8,
1982.
Practice — Motion by plaintiff ex parte in writing pursuant
to Rule 324, for directions regarding procedure for filing
declaration commencing action in which Tax Review Board
and Minister of National Revenue named as defendants —
Registry officers refusing to file and serve declaration under
procedure prescribed by s. 48 of the Act for instituting pro
ceedings against Crown — Whether action as constituted is
proceeding within meaning of s. 48 — Application denied —
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.) c. 10, s. 48 —
Federal Court Rule 324, Tariff A.
MOTION.
COUNSEL:
G. P. Sorenson on his own behalf.
Patricia Lee for defendants.
SOLICITORS:
G. P. Sorenson, Kitchener, on his own behalf.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
defendants.
The following are the reasons for order ren
dered in English by
MAHONEY J.: This action was commenced by a
declaration filed December 7, 1981. Without com
menting on the sufficiency of the declaration as a
pleading or considering whether it discloses a
reasonable cause of action or other matters which
may possibly be the subject of future interlocutory
proceedings, the plaintiff's grievances clearly arise
out of the assessments of his 1976, 1977 and 1978
income tax returns.
The plaintiff moves, in writing under Rule 324,
for directions. He apparently did not wish to name
Her Majesty the Queen as the defendant in his
action and he obviously feels that he was entitled
to name the present defendants, pay the $2 filing
fee prescribed by subsection 48(2), and have the
Court serve the declaration as required by subsec
tion 48(4) of the Federal Court Act.' I take the
present notice of motion, although it is not entirely
clear, as seeking directions from the Court to its
registry officers to that end.
The plaintiff is mistaken. This action, as pres
ently constituted, is not a proceeding within the
contemplation of section 48. It is not a proceeding
against the Crown. It is a proceeding against the
named defendants, the Minister of National Reve
nue and the Tax Review Board. Whatever their
relationship to the Crown, they are not the Crown.
The Crown is Her Majesty the Queen.
The registry officers of the Court were correct
in requiring payment of the filing fee prescribed by
paragraph 2(1) (a) of Tariff A for commencement
of a proceeding. They were correct in classifying
this as a class II proceeding and requiring payment
of $25. They were also correct in refusing to effect
service of the declaration on the defendants. The
registry has been entirely correct in this matter.
There are no directions properly to be given.
ORDER
The application is dismissed.
R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.