Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2016-02-08
Neutral citation
2016 FC 147
File numbers
T-2010-11
Decision Content
Date: 20160208
Docket: T-2010-11
Citation: 2016 FC 147
Ottawa, Ontario, February 8, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
COMMITTEE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC REFORM (“COMER”), WILLIAM KREHM, AND ANN EMMETT
Plaintiffs
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, THE BANK OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
I. INTRODUCTION [1] This is a motion by the Defendants under Rule 221 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules] to strike the Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim of March 26, 2015 [Amended Claim].
II. BACKGROUND [2] The Plaintiff, Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform [COMER], is an economic “think-tank” based in Toronto. COMER was established in 1970 and is dedicated to research and publications on issues of monetary and economic reform in Canada. The individual Plaintiffs are members of COMER who have an interest in economic policy.
A. History of the Litigation [3] This litigation was commenced on December 12, 2011, with the filing of the original Statement of Claim, which was amended in minor ways on January 19, 2012 [Original Claim].
[4] On August 9, 2013, the Original Claim was struck out in its entirety by Prothonotary Aalto, without leave to amend. Upon appeal from the decision of the Prothonotary, I struck the Original Claim in its entirety, but with leave to amend, by way of order on April 24, 2014 [Order of April 24, 2014].
[5] Appeal and cross-appeals of my Order of April 24, 2014 were dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal on January 26, 2015. The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Claim on March 26, 2015. The Defendants now move to strike out this Amended Claim.
B. The Amended Claim [6] The Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim, while an amended version of the Original Claim, continues to seek a series of declarations relating to three basic assertions, as noted in my previous Order of April 24, 2014: first, that the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c B-2 [Bank Act] provides for interest-free loans to the federal, provincial and municipal governments for the purposes of “human capital expenditures,” and the Defendants have failed to fulfill their legal duties to ensure such loans are made, resulting in lower human capital expenditures by governments to the detriment of all Canadians; second, that the Government of Canada uses flawed accounting methods in relation to public finances, thereby understating the benefit of “human capital expenditures” and undermining Parliament’s constitutional role as the guardian of the public purse; and third, that these and other harms are the result of Canadian fiscal and monetary policy being, in part, controlled by private foreign interests through Canada’s involvement in international monetary and financial institutions.
[7] The pleadings of fact which accompany the Amended Claim define “human capital expenditures” as those that encourage the qualitative and quantitative progress of a nation by way of the promotion of the health, education and quality of life of individuals, in order to make them more productive economic actors, through institutions such as schools, universities, hospitals and other public infrastructures. The Plaintiffs state that investment in human capital is the most productive investment and expenditure a government can make.
[8] The Amended Claim seeks nine declarations. The first is that ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act require the Minister of Finance [Minister] and the Government of Canada to request, and the Bank of Canada to provide, interest-free loans for the purpose of human capital expenditures to all levels of government (federal, provincial and municipal).
[9] Second, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the Defendants have not only abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act, but that they have also, by way of a refusal to request and make interest-free loans under ss 18(i) and (j), caused a negative and destructive impact on Canadians through the disintegration of Canada’s economy, its financial institutions, increases in public debt, a decrease in social services, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor, with the continuing disappearance of the middle class. In the accompanying facts to their Amended Claim, the Plaintiffs use a June 11, 2014 request of the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario as an example of an occasion when the Minister refused a request for an interest-free loan without regard to either the nature of the request or pertinent provisions of the Bank Act. The Plaintiffs say that the Minister’s reasons for refusing the Town of Lakeshore’s request are both financially and economically fallacious and not in accordance with statutory duties.
[10] Third, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that s 18(m) of the Bank Act, and its administration and operation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect. They say the Defendants have abdicated their constitutional duties and handed them over to international, private entities whose interests have, in effect, been placed above those of Canadians and the primacy of the Canadian Constitution. The Plaintiffs state that no sovereign government such as Canada should ever borrow money from commercial banks at interest, when it can borrow from its own central bank interest-free, particularly when that central bank, unlike the banks of any other G-8 nation, is publically established, mandated, owned and accountable to Parliament and the Minister, and was created with that purpose as one of its main functions.
[11] Fourth, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the fact that the minutes of meetings involving the Governor of the Bank of Canada [Governor] and other G-8 central bank governors have been kept secret is ultra vires the Governor, as being contrary to the Bank Act – particularly s 24 – and ought to be considered unconstitutional conduct.
[12] The fifth declaration sought is that, by allowing the Governor to keep the nature and content of international bank meetings secret, by not exercising the authority and duty contained in ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act, and in enacting s 18(m) of the Bank Act, Parliament has abdicated its duties and functions as mandated by ss 91(1)(a), (3), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19), (20) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
[13] The Plaintiffs’ sixth and seventh declarations involve the manner in which the Minister accounts for public finances, which the Plaintiffs say is conceptually and logically wrong. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Minister is required to list human capital expenditures — including those related to infrastructure as “assets” rather than “liabilities” in budgetary accounting — as well as all revenues prior to the return of tax credits to individual and corporate tax payers, then subtract tax credits, then subtract total expenditures in order to arrive at an annual “surplus” or “deficit,” as required by s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
[14] The eighth declaration sought is that taxes imposed to pay for the interest on the deficit and the debt to private bankers, both domestic and foreign, are illegal and unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs claim that this is the result of a breach of the constitutional right(s) to “no taxation without representation” which occurs when the Minister fails to disclose anticipated revenues to Parliament before the return of anticipated tax credits, prior to determining whether an anticipated surplus or deficit will be incurred, in the tabling of the budget. This means that a full and proper Parliamentary debate cannot properly take place, thus breaching the right to no taxation without representation under both ss 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as the unwritten constitutional imperatives to the same effect. Also, it results in an infringement of the Plaintiffs’ right to vote under s 3 of the Charter, which is tied to the right to no taxation without representation with respect to the Minister’s constitutional violations. The result is a breach of the terms of the Bank Act relating to interest-free loans and the consequent constitutional violations by the Executive of its duty to govern, and its relinquishing of sovereignty and statutory decision-making to private foreign bankers.
[15] The ninth and final declaration sought is that the “privative clause” in s 30.1 of the Bank Act either (a) does not apply to prevent judicial review, by way of action or otherwise, with respect to statutorily or constitutionally ultra vires actions, or to prevent the recovery or damages based on such actions; or (b) if it does prevent judicial review and recovery, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect, as breaching the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to judicial review and the underlying constitutional imperatives of the rule of law, Constitutionalism and Federalism.
[16] Besides the declaratory relief sought, the Plaintiffs also in the Amended Claim request damages in the amount of $10,000.00 each for individual Plaintiff: William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and for ten COMER Steering Committee [Steering Committee] members named in the Amended Claim, for the breach of their constitutional right of “no taxation without representation” and the inseparable infringement of the right to vote due to alleged constitutional breaches by the Minister. Further, the Plaintiffs request the return of the portion of illegal and unconstitutional tax, to be calculated and calibrated at trial, for each of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Steering Committing, consisting of the proportion of taxes to pay interest charges on the deficit, and debt between 2011 and the time of trial, paid by the Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members, due to the statutory and constitutional breaches of the Defendants’ rights in refusing and/or failing to cover deficits in the budget by way of interest-free loans, as well as the breach of their right to no taxation without representation, to be calculated by the compounded interest changes set out in the budget, as a percentage of the budget, calculated as the same percentage paid by the Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members, to be calculated at trial.
III. ISSUES [17] The Defendants have brought a motion to strike the Amended Claim on the grounds that, inter alia:
1. it fails to comply with the leave to amend granted and fails to remedy the problems identified in the Order of April 24, 2014;
2. it seeks to add parties and new claims that are not permissible by virtue of the leave to amend and the Rules;
3. it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants, or any one of them;
4. it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;
5. it is an abuse of process of the Court;
6. it fails to disclose facts which would show that the action or inaction of the Defendants, or any one of them, could cause an infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Charter or the Constitution;
7. the causal link between the alleged action or inaction of the Defendants or any one of them, and the alleged infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights is too uncertain, speculative and hypothetical to sustain a cause of action;
8. it seeks declaratory relief only available under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7 [Federal Courts Act] and in any event such relief is not available to the Plaintiffs;
9. the Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek an advisory opinion from the Court;
10. it seeks to adjudicate matters that are not justiciable;
11. it seeks to impose a fetter on the sovereignty of Parliament and seeks to overrule or disregard the privilege of the House of Commons over its own debates and internal procedures;
12. the Plaintiffs do not have a s 3 Charter right to any particular form of taxation and there is no causal connection, or legitimate expectation between their vote and the presentation of a budget before the House of Commons and resulting legislation;
13. it concerns matters outside the jurisdiction of the Court; and
14. the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the Amended Claim as of right, nor can they meet the necessary requirements for the grant of public interest standing.
IV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS [18] The following provisions of the Bank Act are applicable in these proceedings:
Powers and business
Pouvoirs
18. The Bank may
18. La Banque peut :
[…]
[…]
(i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of a province on taking security in readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;
i) consentir des prêts ou avances, pour des périodes d’au plus six mois, au gouvernement du Canada ou d’une province en grevant d’une sûreté des valeurs mobilières facilement négociables, émises ou garanties par le Canada ou cette province;
(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government’s estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan;
j) consentir des prêts au gouvernement du Canada ou d’une province, à condition que, d’une part, le montant non remboursé des prêts ne dépasse, à aucun moment, une certaine fraction des recettes estimatives du gouvernement en cause pour l’exercice en cours — un tiers dans le cas du Canada, un quart dans celui d’une province — et que, d’autre part, les prêts soient remboursés avant la fin du premier trimestre de l’exercice suivant;
[…]
[…]
(m) open accounts in a central bank in any other country or in the Bank for International Settlements, accept deposits from central banks in other countries, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and any other official international financial organization, act as agent or mandatary, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits;
m) ouvrir des comptes dans une banque centrale étrangère ou dans la Banque des règlements internationaux, accepter des dépôts — pouvant porter intérêt — de banques centrales étrangères, de la Banque des règlements internationaux, du Fonds monétaire international, de la Banque internationale pour la reconstruction et le développement et de tout autre organisme financier international officiel, et leur servir de mandataire, dépositaire ou correspondant;
[…]
[…]
Fiscal agent of Canadian Government
Agent financier du gouvernement canadien
24. (1) The Bank shall act as fiscal agent of the Government of Canada.
24. (1) La Banque remplit les fonctions d’agent financier du gouvernement du Canada.
Charge for acting
Honoraires
(1.1) With the consent of the Minister, the Bank may charge for acting as fiscal agent of the Government of Canada.
(1.1) La Banque peut, avec le consentement du ministre, exiger des honoraires pour remplir de telles fonctions.
To manage public debt
Gestion de la dette publique
(2) The Bank, if and when required by the Minister to do so, shall act as agent for the Government of Canada in the payment of interest and principal and generally in respect of the management of the public debt of Canada.
(2) Sur demande du ministre, la Banque fait office de mandataire du gouvernement du Canada pour la gestion de la dette publique, notamment pour le paiement des intérêts et du principal de celle-ci.
Canadian Government cheques to be paid or negotiated at par
Encaissement des chèques du gouvernement canadien
(3) The Bank shall not make any charge for cashing or negotiating a cheque drawn on the Receiver General or on the account of the Receiver General, or for cashing or negotiating any other instrument issued as authority for the payment of money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or on a cheque drawn in favour of the Government of Canada or any of its departments and tendered for deposit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
(3) La Banque ne peut exiger de frais pour l’encaissement ou la négociation de chèques tirés sur le receveur général ou pour son compte et d’autres effets autorisant des paiements sur le Trésor, ni pour le dépôt au Trésor de chèques faits à l’ordre du gouvernement du Canada ou d’un ministère fédéral.
[…]
[…]
No liability if in good faith
Immunité judiciaire
30.1 No action lies against Her Majesty, the Minister, any officer, employee or director of the Bank or any person acting under the direction of the Governor for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties that under this Act are intended or authorized to be executed or performed.
30.1 Sa Majesté, le ministre, les administrateurs, les cadres ou les employés de la Banque ou toute autre personne agissant sous les ordres du gouverneur bénéficient de l’immunité judiciaire pour les actes ou omissions commis de bonne foi dans l’exercice — autorisé ou requis — des pouvoirs et fonctions conférés par la présente loi.
[19] The following provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, are applicable in these proceedings:
Appropriation and Tax Bills
Bills pour lever des crédits et des impôts
53. Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
53. Tout bill ayant pour but l’appropriation d’une portion quelconque du revenu public, ou la création de taxes ou d’impôts, devra originer dans la Chambre des Communes.
Recommendation of Money Votes
Recommandation des crédits
54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
54. Il ne sera pas loisible à la Chambre des Communes d’adopter aucune résolution, adresse ou bill pour l’appropriation d’une partie quelconque du revenu public, ou d’aucune taxe ou impôt, à un objet qui n’aura pas, au préalable, été recommandé à la chambre par un message du gouverneur-général durant la session pendant laquelle telle résolution, adresse ou bill est proposé.
[…]
[…]
Application to Legislatures of Provisions respecting Money Votes, etc.
Application aux législatures des dispositions relatives aux crédits, etc.
90. The following Provisions of this Act respecting the Parliament of Canada, namely, — the Provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills, the Recommendation of Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and the Signification of Pleasure on Bills reserved, — shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those Provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in Terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with the Substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the Queen and for a Secretary of State, of One Year for Two Years, and of the Province for Canada.
90. Les dispositions suivantes de la présente loi, concernant le parlement du Canada, savoir : — les dispositions relatives aux bills d’appropriation et d’impôts, à la recommandation de votes de deniers, à la sanction des bills, au désaveu des lois, et à la signification du bon plaisir quant aux bills réservés, — s’étendront et s’appliqueront aux législatures des différentes provinces, tout comme si elles étaient ici décrétées et rendues expressément applicables aux provinces respectives et à leurs législatures, en substituant toutefois le lieutenant-gouverneur de la province au gouverneur-général, le gouverneur-général à la Reine et au secrétaire d’État, un an à deux ans, et la province au Canada.
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada
Autorité législative du parlement du Canada
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
91. Il sera loisible à la Reine, de l’avis et du consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des Communes, de faire des lois pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, relativement à toutes les matières ne tombant pas dans les catégories de sujets par la présente loi exclusivement assignés aux législatures des provinces; mais, pour plus de garantie, sans toutefois restreindre la généralité des termes ci-haut employés dans le présent article, il est par la présente déclaré que (nonobstant toute disposition contraire énoncée dans la présente loi) l’autorité législative exclusive du parlement du Canada s’étend à toutes les matières tombant dans les catégories de sujets ci-dessous énumérés, savoir :
[…]
[…]
1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45)
1A. La dette et la propriété publiques. (45)
[…]
[…]
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
3. Le prélèvement de deniers par tous modes ou systèmes de taxation.
4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
4. L’emprunt de deniers sur le crédit public.
[…]
[…]
6. The Census and Statistics.
6. Le recensement et les statistiques.
[…]
[…]
14. Currency and Coinage.
14. Le cours monétaire et le monnayage.
[…]
[…]
16. Savings Banks.
16. Les caisses d’épargne.
[…]
[…]
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
18. Les lettres de change et les billets promissoires.
19. Interest.
19. L’intérêt de l’argent.
20. Legal Tender.
20. Les offres légales.
[…]
[…]
[20] The following provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, are applicable in these proceedings:
Democratic rights of citizens
Droits démocratiques des citoyens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote et est éligible aux élections législatives fédérales ou provinciales.
Life, liberty and security of person
Vie, liberté et sécurité
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu’en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
[…]
[…]
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Égalité devant la loi, égalité de bénéfice et protection égale de la loi
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de personne et s’applique également à tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l’âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques.
[…]
[…]
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
Engagements relatifs à l’égalité des chances
36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
36. (1) Sous réserve des compétences législatives du Parlement et des législatures et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement et les législatures, ainsi que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux, s’engagent à :
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
a) promouvoir l’égalité des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-être;
(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
b) favoriser le développement économique pour réduire l’inégalité des chances;
(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
c) fournir à tous les Canadiens, à un niveau de qualité acceptable, les services publics essentiels.
Commitment respecting public services
Engagement relatif aux services publics
(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Canada prennent l’engagement de principe de faire des paiements de péréquation propres à donner aux gouvernements provinciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre en mesure d’assurer les services publics à un niveau de qualité et de fiscalité sensiblement comparables.
[21] The following provision of the Rules is applicable in these proceedings:
Motion to Strike
Requête en radiation
221. (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
221. (1) À tout moment, la Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner la radiation de tout ou partie d’un acte de procédure, avec ou sans autorisation de le modifier, au motif, selon le cas:
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(a) qu’il ne révèle aucune cause d’action ou de défense valable.
(b) is immaterial or redundant
(b) qu’il n’est pas pertinent ou qu’il est redondant ;
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) qu’il est scandaleux, frivole ou vexatoire ;
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(d) qu’il risque de nuire à l’instruction équitable de l’action ou de la retarder;
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(e) qu’il diverge d’un acte de procédure antérieur ;
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
(f) qu’il constitue autrement un abus de procédure.
and may order the action be dismissed or judgement entered accordingly.
Elle peut aussi ordonner que l’action soit rejetée ou qu’un jugement soit enregistré en conséquence.
V. ARGUMENT A. Defendants’ Submissions on the Motion (1) The Test on a Motion to Strike [22] The Defendants say that the test to strike out a pleading under Rule 221 is whether it is plain and obvious on the facts pleaded that the action cannot succeed: Sivak et al v The Queen et al, 2012 FC 272 at para 15 [Sivak]; R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para 17 [Imperial Tobacco]. While there is a rule that material facts in a statement of claim should be taken as true when determining whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action, this does not require the court to accept at face value bare assumptions or allegations which may be regarded as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or legal submissions dressed up as facts: Operation Dismantle v The Queen, [1985] 1 SCR 441 at para 27 [Operation Dismantle]; Carten v Canada, 2009 FC 1233 at para 31 [Carten].
(2) Reasonable Cause of Action [23] The Rules require that the pleading of material facts disclose a reasonable cause of action. A pleading must: (i) state facts and not merely conclusions of law; (ii) include material facts; (iii) state facts and not the evidence by which they are to be proved; and (iv) state facts concisely in a summary form: Carten, above; Sivak, above; Rules 174 and 181 of the Rules. The Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim fails to do this. Its allegations do not provide the necessary elements of each cause of action together with the material facts. Furthermore, it is not clear if the Plaintiffs continue to rely on the allegations of conspiracy and misfeasance as facts to support these allegations are not included in the pleadings. As a result, it cannot be said that the Amended Claim’s assertions result in the liability of the Defendants, or any one of them.
[24] The Amended Claim includes amendments that are not permissible under the Rules: new parties (the Steering Committee members) and a cause of action not grounded in the facts already pleaded (the allegation of a breach of s 3 Charter rights) have been added. The Defendants further argue that the Amended Claim breaches the terms of the permission to amend by failing to cure the problems identified in the Order of April 24, 2014.
[25] The Defendants say that there is no constitutional duty to present the federal budget in the manner sought by the Plaintiffs. As a result, no breach of the principle of no taxation without representation has occurred. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that no taxation without representation means that the Crown may not levy a tax without the authority of Parliament: Kingstreet Investments v New Brunswick, [2007] 1 SCR 3 at para 14; Constitution Act, 1867, ss 53 and 90. The present circumstances suggest that this constitutional requirement has been satisfied.
[26] As the master of its own procedure, Parliament cannot be said to have a duty to legislate. No cause of action can result from failing to enact a law: New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319 at 354-355 [NB Broadcasting]; Telezone Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [2004] OJ No 5, 69 OR (3d) 161 (CA) [Telezone]; Lucas v Toronto Services Board, 51 OR (3d) 783 at para 10; Moriss v Attorney General, [1995] EWJ No 297 (England and Wales Court of Appeal) at para 38.
[27] Citing s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Plaintiffs allege that the accounting method employed in the budgetary process is unconstitutional. However, this subsection, “the Census and Statistics,” is simply one of the classes of subjects enumerated in s 91 over which Parliament has exclusive legislative authority; it does not impose a duty to legislate and, as such, is of little help to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants point out that, in any event, much of what is being sought by the Plaintiffs is publically available from the Department of Finance. For example, Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2012 can be found online at http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2012/taxexp12-eng.asp.
[28] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ legitimate expectations argument, the Defendants state that it falls under the doctrine of fairness or natural justice, and does not create substantive rights: Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 26. The only procedure due to a Canadian citizen is that proposed legislation receive three readings in the House of Commons and the Senate and that it receive Royal Assent: Authorson v Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39 [Authorson]. The procedural rights described by the Plaintiffs have never existed: Penikett v The Queen, 1987 CanLii 145 (YK CA) at 17-18.
[29] The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Magna Carta does not assist them. While the document holds a seminal place in the development of Canadian constitutional principles, it has been displaced by legislation in both the United Kingdom and Canada. It has no contemporary independent legal significance or weight and is therefore “amenable to ordinary legislative change”: Rocco Galati et al v Canada, 2015 FC 91 at para 74 [Galati].
[30] Parliamentary privilege, including its corresponding powers and immunities, ensures the proper functioning of Parliament and is one of the ways in which the constitutional separation of powers is respected: Telezone, above, at para 13; Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid, 2005 SCC 30 at para 21 [Vaid]. In Authorson, above, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision in Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 SCR 753, indicating that the way in which a legislative body proceeds is a matter immune from judicial review and is one of self-definition and inherent authority. The United Kingdom Bill of Rights of 1689, 1 Will & Mar sess 2, c 2, partially codifies parliamentary privilege at article 9, precluding any court from impeaching or questioning the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament: Prebble v Television New Zealand, [1994] UKPC 3, [1995] 1 AC 321 (JCPC); Hamilton v al Fayed, [2000] 2 All ER 224 (HL) [Hamilton v al Fayed].
[31] Once a category of privilege is established, it is not the courts but Parliament that may determine whether a particular exercise of privilege is necessary or appropriate: Parliament of Canada Act, RSC 1985, c P-1, ss 4-5 [Parliament of Canada Act]; Pickin v British Railways Board, [1974] AC 765 (HL) at 790; Vaid, above, at para 29. Recognized categories of privilege include freedom of speech and control over debates and proceedings in Parliament: Vaid, above. The Defendants assert that the budget debate, its presentation, supporting papers and associated legislation fall under this category of privilege: Roman Corp v Hudon’s Bay Oil & Gas Co, [1973] 3 SCR 820 at 827-828; NB Broadcasting, above.
[32] By virtue of ss 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, “Money Bills” must originate in the House of Commons, and the Governor General must grant a recommendation for the expenditure of public funds. There is no suggestion in the Amended Claim that these requirements have not been satisfied.
[33] COMER, as an unincorporated association, cannot benefit from the protection provided for the electoral rights of citizens provided by s 3 of the Charter. While this protection could apply to the two individual Plaintiffs, provided they are Canadian citizens, neither has plead such a cause of action. The Amended Claim makes no suggestion that the Plaintiffs’ access to “meaningful participation” in the electoral process – what the Supreme Court has determined is protected by s 3 – has been in any way affected: Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 SCR 912 at para 27.
[34] In order for a cause of action to be brought under the Charter, at least a threat of violation of a Charter right must be established: Operation Dismantle, above, at para 7. The Amended Claim does not demonstrate a link between the actions of any of the Defendants and the alleged s 3 harms. The Defendants further submit that s 3 has never been interpreted to encompass any rights or legitimate expectations that a claimant’s elected representatives will enact any particular measures or refrain from doing so.
[35] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ damages claim for the return of allegedly unconstitutional taxes, the Defendants assert that no factual support has been brought forward to support such a claim.
[36] The Defendants also address several other allegations in the Amended Claim. As regards the alleged misfeasance by public officers in the withholding of anticipated total revenue, the Defendants say that the necessary elements of the tort – including any alleged state of mind of a person involved, wilful default, malice or fraudulent intention – are not made out: St John’s Port Authority v Adventure Tours Inc, 2011 FC 198 at para 25. Of note is the absence of facts that would support a finding of deliberate and unlawful misconduct of a public officer, or that a public officer was aware that his or her conduct was unlawful and likely to harm the Plaintiffs: Odhavji v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 at paras 23, 28-29. In terms of the nominate tort of statutory breach, the Supreme Court of Canada has established that it does not exist: The Queen v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 SCR at 225. Even so, the remedy for a breach of statutory duty by a public authority is judicial review for invalidity: Holland v Saskatchewan, 2008 SCC at para 9.
[37] The Plaintiffs also make a claim of conspiracy, but again fail to plead the material facts necessary to support such an allegation, such as the identity of the officials engaged in the conduct, the type of agreement entered into, the time the agreement was reached, the lawful or unlawful means that were to be used, and the nature of the intended injury to the Plaintiffs. Other requirements that are missing include an agreement between two or more persons and intent to injure: G.H.L. Fridman, Introduction to the Canadian Law of Torts, 2nd ed (Markham: Butterworths, 2003) at 185.
[38] The Plaintiffs plead that, through s 24 of the Bank Act, Parliament has allowed the impugned actions by the Government of Canada. However, the Defendants point out that this provision has nothing to do with the keeping of minutes by the Bank. In addition, the Plaintiffs have not provided the grounds necessary to demonstrate how s 30.1, which provides that no action lies against the Crown, the Minister of Finance and officials of the Bank of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties under the Bank Act, would affect their rights.
(3) Declaratory Relief [39] The Defendants make a series of submissions in relation to the Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief. First, they say the Federal Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory and coercive remedies only as prescribed in the Federal Courts Act. Section 18 indicates that extraordinary remedies can only be obtained on an application for judicial review under s 18.1. Subsection 18.4(2) allows the Court to direct that an application for judicial review be treated and proceeded with as an action, but does not authorize the Plaintiffs to initiate a request for declaratory or coercive relief in an action.
[40] The requirements for proper judicial review, as set out by s 18.1, include that only someone who is “directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought” may bring an application. The Plaintiffs are not directly affected.
[41] The Plaintiffs’ claim damages for a “return of the portion of illegal and unconstitutional tax.” The Defendants say that it is hard to see how these taxes can be claimed without impugning the legality of the instruments that gave rise to their increase. Additionally, the law is clear that the Plaintiffs may only seek to attack administrative action by state actors by way of judicial review: Telezone, above, at para 52.
[42] Second, in order to claim declaratory relief, entitlement must be established. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that a declaration of unconstitutionality is a declaratory remedy for the settlement of a real dispute: Khadr v Canada (Prime Minister), 2010 SCC 3 [Khadr]. Before the court can issue a declaratory remedy, it must have jurisdiction over the issue at bar, the question before the court must be real and not theoretical, and the person raising it must have a real interest in raising it. The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs have not met any of these requirements.
[43] Third, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to refer matters for a