The Plaintiffs had filed a Statement of Claim personally naming the Minister of National Revenue as a Defendant, and seeking $10 million dollars in damages on the basis that the Minister had no statutory authority to require the Plaintiffs to file income taxes. His Lordship reviewed the Statement of Claim in a previous hearing, and determined it to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Pleading which should be reviewed pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”). Thus, the Plaintiffs were permitted to show cause as to why the Statement of Claim should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the review by written submissions procedure called for in CPN7 was unlawful and unfair. The Court responded that Rule 6.9(1)(c) permits legal procedures on a documents-only basis, and that this process had been endorsed by the Courts of Appeal. The Court also noted that several documents filed by the Plaintiffs effectively expanded on the Statement of Claim, and were inadmissible by operation of Rule 3.68(3).

The Court found that the Statement of Claim was substantively an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (“OPCA”), which have consistently been found to be an abuse of process. Likewise, the Statement of Claim sought an Order that the Minister must settle the case; an impossible remedy, and further grounds to strike the pleading. Having found that the Statement of Claim had no basis in law and was an abuse of process, His Lordship ordered it to be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68 and paragraph 3(e) of CPN7. The Plaintiffs’ approval of the form of Order was dispensed with as per Rule 9.4(2)(c).