Harper regime's pyramid scheme revealed
Canada's unsolved judicial problems
INTRODUCTION AND UPDATE:
Today (January 6, 2021) I received a question online about CORRUPTION in the countries of the world. I answered
it as follow:
Depends on the definition of the word "corruption". Is it corruption to contravene the laws of your country to grab more and more power for your governing party and ministries? Is it corruption to
reduce the powers of the Supreme Court of Canada and shift that excess power to the federal ministers? This is what Mr. Roger Bilodeau, the previous acting Registrar of the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada did till 2020 habitually. He kept preventing
serious issues of his country to reach the nine excellent judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, despite section 61 of the Supreme Court Act that allowed any party to be heard by the nine justices automatically and directly in cases where error in law is alleged
in the court appealed from. Mr. Bilodeau has effectively prevented the filing of two documents since January and March 2019, although he has not issued any order to me. Mr. Bilodeau, of course, is an agent of the Attorneys General of Canada. Can we call the
latter ministers “corrupt” if they keep encouraging such unconstitutional behavior and their aim is the termination of the rule of law in Canada? As you see, if two or more ministers or top public servants conspire against the rule of law and the
powers of the Supreme Court of the country, they can be called corrupt. Canada used to brag about being the most livable country of the world. Corruption is not limited to third world countries or banana republics. It is not limited to the oppression of a
country by police or machine guns. Corruption can be achieved by pressuring every employee of a ministry to tell lies and/or violate the legislation by a peaceful and friendly manner and with a smile on their face for the media. In this sense, yes, Canada
is a corrupt country. [Here ends the update.]
PART I – A concise overview:
The material and legal issues occupied thick volumes in the lower courts. Please refer to those submissions
if you are interested in the details. The constitutional questions below are self-explanatory.
Due to the 1.5 spaced line requirement of the rules, there is no room here to provide any concise overview of the facts and issues but most of the latter
have extremely important societal effects, namely, whether Canada will remain a free and democratic society, or, ready to become a dictatorship forever. The sixth ground on page 3 above, in the Notice of Motion, is about a policy that paralyzes section 7.
of the Access to Information Act and the person of the Commissioner, in order to grant delays of months or years in the ministries’ decision-making process. Therefore, such (past) policy simply wants to bring misery for Canadians by endless
red tape. Please note that the sixth ground has not been before the judges in the courts below.
As for the clearest description of the issues and controversies regarding the SCC Registry and section 61. of the Supreme Court
Act, please do not hesitate to refer to a diagram that is shown on several tabs of the applicant`s website named www.correctingworldhistory.com – a picture tells more than hundred words.
The appellant – applicant is apologizing for this hasty style and the possible grammatical and other errors in this whole submission. He is not a superman, only a humble and concerned average Canadian citizen with good intentions towards the country
and its courts.
PART II – A List of Constitutional Questions in issue (drafted by Zoltan A. Simon)
- Whenever error in law is alleged, does the legislation require
the administrators of the SCC Registry to refuse the filing of any Notice of Appeal under section 61. of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c S-26, and prevent it to get before the panel of nine SCC judges, because
(a) Errors in law practically never happen in the lower courts;
(b) The wording of s. 61. reveals that it applies only to criminal cases;
(c) Subsection 40.(1) of the Supreme Court Act always overrides s. 61. whenever
error in law is alleged;
(d) The French version of s. 61. means that the proper proceeding, when error in law
is alleged, is automatically by application for leave to appeal;
(e) There is an error in the wording of ss. 40.(3), so the word “appeal” shall read
“application for leave to appeal” and, therefore, the same applies to ss. 40.(3);
(f) The four categories listed under “proceeding” in paragraph 2. of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of Canada,
SOR/2002-156, are so vague or controversial that only
the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada is able to decide about the proper
(g) The employees of the SCC Registry must obey another enactment that is in conflict
with s. 61.?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, which specific enactment renders s.
of the Supreme Court Act invalid or inoperative?
3. Can a decision – instead of an order – of the SCC Registrar expressed in a personal
letter sent to an appellant, following such situation above involving s. 61., forbid the
application of Rule 78.(1) of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Canada, SOR/2002-
156, and also override section 52. of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26, so
in reality the Registrar shall exercise exclusive ultimate appellate jurisdiction in
- Is the SCC Registry or its administrators allowed
to contravene Subsection 17.(1) or 17.(4) of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11, by failing to pay to the credit of the Receiver General public monies including $500 as security deposit in case
of appeals under s. 61., particularly in cases where the Crown considers those appeals vexatious and abuses of process, without a scintilla of chance to succeed?
- If the Vancouver Registry of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia would refuse to file an Amended Notice of Civil Claim because the instant party submitting it is not represented by a lawyer and has no accessible address within 30 kilometres of the Registry, only an accessible address in
Alberta, an email address that had originated in British Columbia, and a fax number in Alberta, would such refusal based on the rigid and non-remedial interpretation of Subrule 1-1 (1) regarding “accessible address” and/or Subrule
4-1 (1)(b)(ii) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009 requiring both an accessible address in British Columbia and a fax number or an e-mail address, all in British Columbia infringe the party’s mobility rights guaranteed
by s. 6. (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, his equality rights against discrimination primarily on basis of residence guaranteed by ss. 15.(1) of the Charter, or ss. 24.
(1) of the Charter (since no court could grant any remedy to a party that has no file in the registry of that court)?
- If the answer to Question 5 is in the affirmative regarding at least one infringement
on the three sections listed, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1. of the Charter?
the CIC policy called “IP 2 Processing Applications to Sponsor Members of the Family Class”, by mentioning five times the word “contract” (referring to a sponsorship undertaking between “the Minister” and a sponsor)
override ss. 132. (4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 that is silent about a contract and only mentions an agreement that includes two statements and a declaration?
- In the light that the Crown has no contract with the family class sponsors, at least not with the instant appellant, is the legal principle that strangers to a contract do not have contractual rights and cannot claim damages under that contract,
as expressed in Bilson v. Kokotow et al., 1975 CanLII 771 (ON SC), and in Bilson et al. v. Kokotow et al., 1978 CanLII 1632 (ON CA), a.k.a. 23 O.R. (2d) 720 [where leave
to appeal to SCC was eventually refused], still valid in Canada?
- If the sponsors are not notified of the default and have no means to prevent a ministry to grant social assistance benefits to the sponsored persons
unlawfully, so the sponsors’ only efficient solution to prevent a default with absolute certainty would be the forcible confinement of the sponsored person(s), would this circumstance or requirement render a sponsorship agreement in the family class
void ab initio as its fulfilment would contravene ss. 279. (2) and ss. 279.01 (1) of the Criminal Code and the doctrine or maxim of ex turpi causa?
the defaulting sponsors in the family class do not receive notifications of their alleged debts within the limitation period of six years after the default, they are not subject to a spousal or child support order of a court, and ss. 127.(1)
of the Criminal Code does not apply to them, could their punishment for such “offence” under the IRPA or the IRP Regulations by their forced separation from their spouses or children for a decade or forever be qualified
as “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”?
- If the answer to Question 10 is in the affirmative, is the infringement on sections 11. and 12. of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1. of the Charter?
- Does the CIC policy called
“Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)” between the CIC and the CRA, issued in 2006, have the power to override any paragraph of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations?
- Could the MOU’s paragraph “WHEREAS section 146 of IRPA provides that an amount or part of an amount payable under this Act that has not been paid may be certified by the Minister without delay…”
– quoted in the MOU out of context without its important preamble “COLLECTION OF DEBTS DUE TO HER MAJESTY” be construed as – contrary to s. 13. of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21 –
“Whenever the Minister wants to collect a “debt” (by garnishment), the Minister may optionally file a certificate in the Federal Court only for fun, but the Minister would be in the same position and have the same rights without making that
- If the answer to Question 13 is in the affirmative, but since such misinterpretation violates ss. 15 (2)(a) of the said Interpretation Act (since a contrary intention
appears) and indirectly infringes on several Charter rights, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1. of the Charter?
- Can ss. 145. (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) be interpreted by extrapolation as “A debt or uncertified debt claim may be recovered at any time”?
- Is there a clear legislative intent expressed in the laconic ss. 145. (3) of the IRPA (interpreted or misinterpreted as a debt may be certified at any time, even after the end of the 6-year
limitation period) to render ss. 146. (1) (b) of the IRPA – regarding the prescribed 30-day limit – invalid, while to place the whole IRPA above subsections 3 (5), 3
(6), and 9 (1) of the Limitation Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 266, also above section 32. of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and ss. 39. (1) of the Federal Courts Act, in order
to make all those enactments, plus the case law concluded by the SCC in Markevich v. Canada,  1SCR 94, 2003 SCC 9 (CanLII) invalid or inoperable?
- Since the Crown is unable to prove that a contract
or agreement has been signed by the ministers or their representatives with each sponsor in the family class, may the legislative intention, particularly the use of the word “may” instead of “shall”, expressed in ss. 145.
(3) of the IRPA be reasonably interpreted as “The Minister or the Crown may recover every certified debt claim on the basis of damages in tort that involved fraud in order to get social benefits – for example when the sponsor
or/and the sponsored person declared that they lived separately while they resided together – and the recovery may take place after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period because the Crown’s right to sue in tort is not extinguished after
- If the previous family class sponsorship of the instant appellant was filed in January 1999, the sponsored immigrants landed in Canada in December 1999, a default [as defined by ss. 135.
(a)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations] took place in October 2000 under the Immigration Act, the Minister or the Crown has not notified the sponsor until 2007, no ministerial certificate has ever been filed
in the Federal Court, the sponsor has never admitted any debt and has not made any payment, the Crown has never taken him to any court, the Minister has never taken a self-help action before the end of the 6-year limitation period (except that his tax account
was garnished in 2008/9, almost 8 years after the default), and all debt claims of the Crown against him have been exhausted by December 2006 pursuant to paragraphs 3 (5), 3 (6), and 9 (1) of the Limitation
Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 266; in such situation what paragraph of which enactment of Canada would allow the resuscitation of his alleged debt after December 2006?
- If there is no provision in the laws of Canada
how to resuscitate a moot claim that has expired forever by limitation law, can section 190. of the IRPA [i.e., “Every application, proceeding or matter under the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately
before the coming into force of this section shall be governed by this Act on that coming into force.”] be interpreted that a silence and inactivity of the Crown for about eight years after the default constitutes a “pending matter” in December
2006, or, in April 2007 when Canada refused permanent resident visas for his wife and stepson?
- Is there any provision in the laws of Canada that renders ss. 118.(2) of the Immigration Act
(in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Volume V) inoperable or invalid in a case described at Question 18 above when the default happened in October 2000 under the Immigration Act, before June 28, 2002 when the IRPA came into
- Is the watershed decision of the SCC in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi,  2 SCR 504, 2011 SCC 30 (CanLII) still governing in similar family sponsorship cases, so the mentioning of ministerial
certificate (seven or eight times) with the notification of the sponsors as requirements for the Crown in that verdict are still valid?
- Can the repeated wording, “under this Act” [i.e.,
the IRPA] in ss. 145.(1)(a) and (b), and ss. 146.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be lawfully interpreted as “under this Act and the previous Immigration Act, 1976[-1977]” by
the insertion of a few words?
- Is the legal principle that the sponsors are not responsible before their notification for the social benefit amounts paid to the sponsored persons, as expressed in Manitoba v.
Khaleghi-Hashemian, 2002 MBQB 1 (CanLII) correct and still governing in Canada?
- Are the CIC-CRA policy called “Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)” and/or the Sponsorship Agreement
(REGS. April, 1997) on CIC form IMM 1344 C (02-98) by stating in the latter, “It is further agreed that damages will not be less than the total of all amounts actually received by the immigrant” [a prejudice claiming that the – always Canadian
– sponsors are always unreliable, act in bad faith so have 100% of the financial responsibility while the alien sponsored applicants and the Crown’s administrators are always perfect and never make errors or omissions] ultra vires the
CIC and the CRA for creating an absurd consequence that is contrary to legislative intention expressed in s. 3. of the IRPA, and/or infringe 15. (1) and/or s. 12. of the Charter in forced
separation cases wherespouses and their children are separated from each other for years or forever; for nine years in our case?
- If the answer to Question 24 is affirmative, and such social prejudice, stereotyping,
discrimination and collective punishment against the sponsors, based on nationality and profession, results in a cruel and unusual treatment for their families and violates the principles of the Geneva Conventions Act, are such infringements on (sub)sections
12. and 15. (1) of the Charter a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1. of the Charter?
- Was paragraph 4.(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, I-2 – SOR/78-172 [stating, “The family class does not include a spouse who entered into the marriage primarily for the purpose of gaining
admission to Canada as a member of the family class and not with the intention of residing permanently with the other spouse.”], or its paragraph 5.(1) [requiring a continuous cohabitation with the sponsor for at least one year], paragraph
5.(2)(iii) – that the Crown never enforces due to the MOU and the sponsorship agreements – , or its paragraph 6.1 (2), [“Where a sponsor sponsors an application for landing of a member of the family
class described in paragraph (h) of the definition “member of the family class” in subsection 2.(1) – see “debt obligation” – and that member is unable to meet the requirements of the Act and these Regulations
or dies, the sponsor may sponsor the application for landing of another member of the family class described in that paragraph.”] valid for a family class sponsorship where the sponsored immigrants landed in Canada in December 1999 and a sponsorship
default took place in October 2000?
- If the answer to Question 26 is in the affirmative for any of the paragraphs cited above from the Immigration Regulations, 1978, and if a sponsored spouse has not qualified
as having been a member of the family class when the sponsorship default occurred, can he or she create a sponsorship debt in the family class for the sponsor?
- Are paragraphs 145. and 146.
of the IRPA as interpreted or misinterpreted by Crown policies inconsistent with the definition of “debts, obligations and liabilities” in ss. 3 (1) of the Court Order Enforcement Act, RSBC 1996, c 78 –
claiming that obligations not arising out of trust or contract are not debts, unless judgment has been recovered on them – also supported by paragraphs 8, 9 and Schedule 2 of the Family Support Orders
and Agreements Garnishment Regulations, SOR/88-181? [Please note that the sponsorship agreements in the family class fully or partially belong to “family agreements.” Also, the IRPA and the IRP Regulations intend to deal
with immigration, not with specific details of garnishment.]
- Does the IRPA or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations contain any provision that allows a province or territory to issue
an efficient document for CRA or CIC, in lieu of the required ministerial certificate filed and registered in the Federal Court pursuant to s. 146. of the IRPA, substituting the latter certificate by a single page signed
by any provincial public servant claiming that the sponsor’s debt is enforceable?
- When a provincial ministry did not make a payment of a prescribed nature or violated the laws of that province, particularly
when paying benefits for ineligible full time students (as in case of the appellant’s previous sponsorship) pursuant to ss. 16. (1) and (2) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation, BC Reg 263/2002, may such error of the
Crown’s administrator reduce or eliminate the sponsor’s alleged financial responsibility or debt?
- Since the word “interest” in the financial or banking sense appears only under ss. 146.(2)
in the IRPA, is it a reasonable supposition that the legislative intent was not to charge interest before the filing and registration of a ministerial certificate in the Federal Court that is approximately the time of the sponsors’ supposed
notification about their defaults or debts?
- Is the Province of British Columbia allowed to ignore and contravene sections 3. and 4. of the Interest Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.
I-15 [that prescribes an interest of five per cent per annum] and charge more than six per cent yearly interest rate on the alleged uncertified sponsorship debt in a case where the sponsorship agreement did not specify an interest rate and a non-existing contract
between the sponsor and the Crown could not contain an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent?
- Considering Subsection 6.(2)
of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act,R.S.C., 1985, c. G-2, when a ministry of British Columbia served a garnishee summons on Her Majesty in Right of Canada [i.e., the CRA] in 2008 with a delay of almost eight years, well
after the limitation period has expired, while it could have been served on Her Majesty in October or November 2000 within thirty days after the instant appellant’s sponsorship default, was that garnishee summons properly served and effective in law?
- If public servants can interpret ss. 80.(2) and ss. 83.(1) of the Financial Administration Act [RSBC 1996] that a “certification” of a debt by any administrator
is valid without the involvement of any court, and British Columbia can garnishee the “suspect” debtor’s tax account with CRA, would such inconsistency with s. 27. of Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act,
RSC 1985, with s. 26. and s. 45. of Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, RSC 1985, ss. 146.(1) and (2) of the IRPA, and/or paragraphs 8, 9,
and Schedule 2 of Family Support Orders and Agreements Garnishment Regulations, or/and ss. 11.(d) of the Charter render the cited sections of the Financial Administration Act [RSBC 1996] invalid
- In light of the fact that the wording “judgment debtor” is found 34 times in the Federal Courts Rules but no matches show up for “other than judgment debtor”, “possible
debtor,” “suspect debtor” or “suspected debtor” by a search at all, and the situation is similar in other federal enactments, is it possible that in the laws of Canada the word “debtor” always refers to “judgment
debtor” and, therefore, a possible debtor that has never received any summons shall not be punished?
- If a sponsored spouse in the family class abandons his or her sponsor within a year of continuous cohabitation,
and keeps to cohabit with another boyfriend or girlfriend while gets social assistance benefits, would such circumstances turn an innocent re-victimized sponsor into an “offender” legally? [Sub-question 36 (a): If the answer for Question 36 is
“yes,” and there is no ministerial certificate on file in the Federal Court for seven years after the default of the garnisheed sponsor in the family class, is that a contravention of ss. 11. (a) of the Charter? Sub-question
(b): If the answer for the previous sub-question 36 (a) is in the negative, and the Crown is punishing such non-offence by the forced separation of a family for seven or more years, is that considered a cruel or unusual punishment or treatment that contravenes
section 12. of the Charter?
- If a memorandum of fact and law was served and filed by the Government of Canada in the case “Docket: A-367-12,” with a delay of 33 days after the
deadline set by Rule 346. (2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, and the FCA Registry accepted its filing while the Federal Court found Mr. Abdessadok’s 24-hour delay in filing his submission unacceptable in Abdessadok
v. Canada (Canada Border Services Agency), 2006 FC 236 (CanLII), and such adverse treatment between the Crown and the instant self-represented appellant (as an unjustified or unjustifiable distinction between the powerful and the weak) infringe on s.
15.(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is such infringement demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1. of the Charter?
- If the Courts Administration Service or the Chief Justice of the FCA ignored for good the filed Notice of Appeal of an interlocutory order [dated 30 May 2013, Docket: A-367-12 above] issued by a FCA judge, without ever assigning a judge to review the appellant’s
arguments that claimed palpable and overriding error(s) in law, is such solution consistent or harmonious with ss. 8. (2)(c) of the Courts Administration Service Act and s. 3. of the Federal Courts Act,
“for the better administration of the laws of Canada?
- If the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada, by contravening s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act, refused the filing of a proper
Notice of Appeal under s. 61. [related to questions 37 and 38 above], preventing the appeal be heard by the panel of nine SCC judges, does it mean that the FCA order of 30 May 2013 [Docket: A-367-12] is final, the word “service”
in ss. 346. (2) of the Federal Courts Rules is “absurd” and the words of that subrule shall be interpreted as “Within 30 days of filing” instead of “Within 30 days after service”? [Note: Particularly
in light of s. 3 of the Federal Courts Rules and the fact that parties do not fight with a Court but with each other, and a delay in serving a document may cause huge financial losses for the opposing party or parties but not for
- If the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada, by contravening s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act, refused the filing of a proper Notice of Appeal under s. 61.
as the instant appellant’s last step againstthe “Tremblay-Lamer principle” (see Docket T-1029-12, the order of the Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer dated 20 July 2012, stating that “No action for damages premised on a hypothetical
administrative decision can succeed because no damage has yet materialized”) is such legal principle valid and final in every case where the Crown threatens a party, person or firm with a possible future unlawful administrative decision? [Note:
Thus, is it now widely acceptable for the Registrar of every court in Canada to post a memo stating, “Administrators of the Registry that file any pleadings against the Crown may lose their jobs without notice and severance payments”, or, may every
A.G. of each province rightfully post a memo saying, “Salaries of judges that grant costs or damages to a party against the Crown may lose all their benefits and severance payments, and their salaries may be cut by 25%?]
- If the answer to Question 40 is in the affirmative and the Crown may apply coercion and intimidation freely and openly, partly with the aim of corrupting Canada’s public servants and the whole society, is such infringement on values fundamental
to a free and democratic society a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1. of the Charter?
42. Do the administrators
or officers of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada have the right to usurp or reduce the power of the Information Commissioner by claiming that she (Ms. Suzanne Legault) has no mandate under s. 7. of the Access
to Information Act to investigate complaints due to the CIC’s failure to provide information within the prescribed 30 days to Service Canada or/and a citizen despite that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is listed under Schedule I,
the request was for a single record easy to find, and CIC has not filed a notice of request for extension of time limit?
The front page of the Notice of Civil Claim that Z.A. Simon and Z.H. Zhong filed the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of BC in May 2014. Please refer its complete text below the following "Summary of two unique court cases".
An Application Response and its Affidavit follow this Notice of Civil Claim.
SUMMARY OF TWO UNIQUE COURT CASES AGAINST MR. HARPER'S POLITICAL-CRIMINAL PYRAMID SCHEME
This summary is for the perusal of the leadership of the Canadian opposition parties (and the reasonable members of the CPC if any) in order to introduce a no-confidence vote against the dictatorship of Stephen Harper in Parliament. Alhough the conservative
majority may defend Mr. Harper's unlawful policies by standing ovation there, even a failing no-confidence vote could call the public attention to the end of Canada's democracy and to a flourishing corrupt dictatorship.
Mr. Harper's Cabinet is the first
one since 1867 that operates openly against the will of Parliament. It keeps violating more than forty laws of Canada since 2006. All admisitrators of many federal ministries and agencies blindly obey the unlawful policies of Harper's Cabinet unconditionally
-- just like soldiers, by a political-criminal pyramid scheme. Thus, Canada's federal administrators have been prostituted.
Z.A. Simon's two court cases below list most of those violations. The government's unlawful policies are aimed primarily
against the most vulnerable segments of society: the seniors applying for OAS benefits, the re-victimized sponsors whose lives have been ruined twice although they bear most of the burdens of new immigration that is crucial for Canada's labour market, ...
besides the well known issue of 1,200 missing or murdered aboriginal women, the miserable treatment of veterans as welfare bums, or the policies creating permanent damages for the Canadian environment.
This web page contains major areas
of tort law involving the Crown as follow:
A. The Crown's tort system originating from the violation of s. 145. (1) and (2) of the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee protection Act): the re-victimized sponsors suffer unlawful
garnishment AND by the separation of their families WITHOUT filing any ministerial certificate at the Federal Court as reqired by law. Hundreds or thousands of re-victimized sponsors and their families are suffering irreversible damages due to this tort and
B. The Crown turns Canada's court system upside down by pressuring the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada not to comply with section 61. of the Supreme Court Act where error is alleged at the lower court(s).
Instead, the Registry's administrators always automatically apply section 40. (1) of the same Act (which paragraph is silent about errors in the lower courts). By this simple tort, the Registry acts as an agent or puppet
of the PMO: the administrators block all the cases of high societal importance from the panel of nine supreme judges of Canada. This means that the "duo" of any present and future PM and the SCC Registrar is usurping the power of the nine SCC judges, hermetically
isolating those judges from the rest of Canada. This means that Canada is approaching a stage where those top two persons control the whole court system. Thus, our country soon could become the prey of any dictator, either extreme right or left, stalinist,
fascist, religious fanatic, or Waco-style. This is a recipe for a civil war unless the Crown gives back the power to the nine judges of the SCC;
C. The same conspiracy (that includes the federal Cabinet's members right now) has got perfect control
of the Court Administration System - that is apperantly led by Mr. Gosselin and/or Mr. Blais, C.J. of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Thus, the orders coming from the PMO through those administrators are blocking the way of any
party that has claims against the Crown. The administrators often misinterpret the orders of the judges, deny or delay the filing of otherwise acceptable pleadings, cut out dozens of pages from the documents by blade or scissors [though the judges
ordered certain pages or paragraphs to be struck by horizontal lines], etc. The Crown's pleadings are always accepted by the registries for filing even despite of an unjustifiable delay of several weeks or months while the administrators refuse
to file documents of Canadian individuals submitted by a delay of 24 hours. Although most of the FC and FCA judges are unbiased, the torts of the registries often prevent them from seeing the overall picture and disable them to deliver unbiased judgments;
D. A few provinces apply the "assize" system in the courts' scheduling departments. Such word does not show up in any legislation and contravenes section 15. (1) of the Canadian Rights and Freedoms by discrimination based
on residence or province. An "assize" is normally two weeks - sometimes one week - long. An assize is not a date so its application violates the rules of the courts. The provincial assize system means that the court's administrators leave the
small parties in total darkness, uncertainty, and suspense, creating them a huge expense. Say, a plaintiff of Nunavut files a claim in the Supreme Court of BC. He or she gets a notice of a week or less instructing him or her to show up at a hearing
in BC. The plaintiffs may lose their jobs for failing to give notice to their employers. They need to buy a much more expensive airplane or bus ticket and book an expensive hotel in the last minute. The Crown, of course, knows the exact date of the
hearing a month ahead since the A.G. controls the administration of the courts. Let alone that if the parties coming from far away (like Nunavut) would lose their cases they may have to pay the transportation and hotel costs of the Crown Counsel(s) for
10 nights or so, plust their man-hours for 240 hours. The parties may need to wait for nine days and the real hearing would take place on the tenth day only. Thus, it seems, the assize system is planned to discourage every party from suing the Crown,
or, make them face unsurmountable financial and other difficulties. (A local resident could sit for ten days at the door of the courtroom and could be available by a ten-minute notice for a hearing. This is a clear discriminiation and violation of the Charter
E. Finally, an extremely important issue that allows the Harper Government to eliminate time as a factor by snatching the power of the Information Commissioner of Canada. Section 7. of the Access to Information
Act obliges each goverment office or ministry to respond to inquiries within 30 days afteer the request. Mr. Harper's Cabinet has prohibited to the Information Commissioner to supervise violations of this Act. The Harpies
immediately utilized this tort by ignoring new applications of seniors for their pension benefits like Old Age Security benefits. [Zoltan A. Simon turned 65 in May 2014 and the federal government is sitting on his pension monies and using them.
He has found three more persons in Red Deer that are suffering from similar treatments by waiting for a year or two for the first pension benefits.] The government is contravening several sections of the Charter by such cowardly and oppressive
strategy. How could thousands of seniors survive for more than a year after the filing of their application without receiving their well deserved cheques?
Well, these are just a few examples of the flourishing Crown torts in Canada.
(Are we, indeed, the most livable counrty of the world???)
Re-victimized family class sponsors, starving seniors and veterans, 1200 missing native women, and self-represented litigants seem to be the main targets of Mr. Harper's and the Crown's catasrophal
policies. If the opposition parties quietly sit back on their laurels for the next 11 months Canadians could see major deterioration of their lives. Harper my win by using a more sophisticated "robocall" campaign. He may pass a new law in Parliament stating
that his decrees would govern and Canada's legislation is just a rough guidelines that does not need to be followed. The CPC may skip the elections in the autumn of 2015. Tanks with the PM's painted image on them could rumble on our streets after October
2015. The RCMP and the army may take different sides and may start shooting at each other during a civil war, during which certain provinces may declare independence from the rest of Canada. Harper may prorogue Parliament for the third time: this time
for good. Since dictators do not need good judges, only corrupt puppets, Mr. Harper may send the majority of our judges to welfare while giving extreme power to each Registrar of every Canadian court that could make the final decisions. Or,
the registrars would be prohibited from filing any claim against the Crown without the PM's special permission. This is a Stalinist approach that would fit Harper's past criminal achievements and future political ambitions. Canada would irreversibly become
the first or second country of the so-called New World Order where the top 0.5% treats the other 99.5% as slaves. (In my opinion, more mysery for the 99.5% does not automatically mean a better or richer life for the top 0.5%.)
to Murphy's Law if there is a chance that something wrong may happen it will happen. It is time for every Canadian to start thinking and acting for a better solution.
New and unique court cases about Crown torts
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Zoltan Andrew SIMON and Zuan Hao ZHONG
Attorney General of Canada
Attorney General of British Columbia
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil
claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry
of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil
claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of
this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must
be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service,
(b) if you were served with the notice of civil
claim anywhere in the United States of America, within 35 days after that service,
(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or
(d) if the time
for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time.
Claim of the Plaintiff(s)
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
- The plaintiffs are Zoltan Andrew
SIMON and his wife Zuan Hao ZHONG (Zhong Zuan Hao in Chinese). The latter is citizen of the People’s Republic of China. They are pleading in their personal capacity as two individuals forming a single party since Z.A. Simon is representing Ms. Zhong
and himself. Their mailing address for service is the same. Zoltan A. Simon is Canadian citizen since 1979. In the following pleadings the word “plaintiff” always refers to Zoltan Andrew Simon, the main plaintiff. Ms. Zhong and her son Mr. Ye signed
an affidavit before a state notary public office in China, authorizing Zoltan A. Simon to represent them in any court case or hearing in Canada.
- The two Defendants are: A: The Attorney General of Canada in his representative capacity (representing
four ministries and two court registries of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada) and B: The Attorney General of British Columbia (representing four provincial ministries of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia). Both Defendant parties are
sued in their representative capacity. There are no individual defendants.
- Both defendants include Canada’s Crown servants, employees, agents and/or departmental or other officers and ministers responsible for the lawful operation of the CRA
(Canada Revenue Agency) – probably the Minister of National Revenue or Minister of Finance, or both – and the CIC (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Canada), also the Ministry of Justice and/or the federal authorities responsible for the
lawful operation of the Courts Administration Service, particularly the FC/FCA Registry in Edmonton, and the Ottawa Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada. As for British Columbia, four branches of the BC Government are also included as follow: RSBC (Revenue
Services of BC), Ministry of Housing and Social Development, Ministry of Finance, and Ombudsman BC.
- The key officials of the Crown that have caused the damages in different torts for the plaintiffs will be called “honourable tortfeasors”
below, since it is hard to find a better definition for this group. It includes the ministers of the CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, or Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism): Mr. Monte Solberg (January 2006 to January 3, 2007), Ms. Diane
Finley (January 4, 2007 to October 29, 2008), Mr. Jason Kenney (October 30, 2008 to July 14, 2013), and Mr. Chris Alexander (from July 15, 2013); the ministers of Human Resources and Skills [or Social] Development: Ms. Diane Finley (January 2006 to January
4, 2007 and from October 30, 2008 to July 15, 2013); ministers of Department of Justice [Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General]: Mr. Vic Toews (February 6, 2006 to January 3, 2007), Mr. Rob Nicholson (January 4 2007 to July 14, 2013), and Mr. Peter MacKay
(since July 15, 2013). The Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, the head of the CRA, also belongs to this group. Or, rather, the Deputy Commissioner named Mr. Bill Baker who had knowledge of the matters. Further members of this honourable group are Mr.
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Mr. Wally Oppal (A.G. of BC), Ms. Penelope Lipsack (Counsel to the Government of BC was also involved and even sued by the plaintiff), Mr. Gordon O’Connor and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, both Minister of National Revenue, Ms.
Sylvia Dalman (CRA), and Ms. Sharon Shanks (Service Canada). On behalf of Ombudsman BC, R. Brown and Ms. Judy Ashbourne may be mentioned. As for the employees of the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Ms. Mary Ann Achakji, Ms. Barbara
Kincaid, Ms. Nathalie Beaulieu and Mr. Michel Jobidon belong to this group of tortfeasors. Finally, Mr. Daniel Gosselin is a tortfeasor representing the Courts Administration Service. The Attorneys General of Canada and BC have vicarious liability for the
acts, errors, and omissions of all these officials listed above.
- The plaintiffs are suing the federal and provincial Crowns that are, and have been, in all material times, vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their public servants –
including the ministers listed above – in their representative capacities.
- The plaintiff is not suing Her Majesty the Queen in her personal capacity. Please note that the word “Minister” in the entire pleadings includes a Deputy
Minister and the predecessor(s) of that Minister involved in the matters before this Honourable Court.
- The plaintiff is reluctant to show the names of the SCC Registry’s administrators involved. In the past he has listed them in the style of
cause on the front page. It resulted that they declared themselves a party independent from the Crown as the “SCC Party.” Such trick has caused extreme difficulties for the plaintiff, with more costs at each step. In the instant pleadings at bar
their names are not shown in the style of cause. However, the plaintiff is suing the Crown (HMTQ) that is vicariously liable for their torts, acts and omissions. Should they hire a separate Counsel, they shall submit an affidavit stating that they are not
– or have not been – servants of the Crown. (In that case, the plaintiff would add the charge of perjury against them.)
- The plaintiffs assert that all of the public servants of Canada and BC in question made their acts and omissions during
their employment with the Crown, in all material times. (The Crown is free to sue any of them as third parties if they acted in their personal capacity.)
- This is a damage claim of the plaintiff for his “personal” injuries, including mental
suffering, anguish, loss of enjoinment of life, constant headaches and sleeplessness, loss of self-esteem and identity as a Canadian citizen, reduced life expectancy, and cruel or unusual punishment (as a Charter violation) for his family by his wife’s
unlawful and forced separation from him for more than seven years. Also, claims are pleaded for restitution, declaratory relief, for Charter violations and punitive damages.
- The torts against Zoltan A. Simon and his wife Zuan Hao Zhong
took place in Ottawa (Ontario), Greater Vancouver and Victoria (British Columbia), and Hong Kong (Consulate General of Canada), between January 1999 and May 23, 2014 or present.
- The plaintiff has a personal tax account (S.I.N. 718 XXX
XXX) with both Defendant. Also, he had an active tax file with the Province of BC between 1976 and 2002. Both plaintiffs have a shared CIC file, with Client #20925897, KIT ID #200710018372, in the Mississauga Case Processing Centre. Therefore, in all material
times since January 1999, the Defendants owed a standard duty of care obligation to Mr. Simon, and since February 2007 to Ms. Zhong.
- Ms. Zhong, one of the plaintiffs, was born on November 26, 1962 in Qingyuan, Guangdong Province, China. Presently
she is a homemaker, with a modest monthly pension income.
- The main plaintiff, Zoltan Andrew Simon, is a self-represented litigant. He was born in Budapest, Hungary, on May 26, 1949. His original professions were geologist and land surveyor, with diplomas.
He came to Canada in 1976 as a landed immigrant and worked in Canada – mainly in civil, mining, and railway engineering in BC – until 2002. He worked in Ontario till 2007 as a textile operator, finally since 2008 as a security officer in Alberta.
He is author of several published books about world history. He is resident of Red Deer, Alberta.
- The plaintiff’s two children were born in Vancouver: Rita (30) and Eric (28). Both of them are living in the Greater Vancouver area and have sons.
In 1998, when his children were not living with him, the plaintiff felt lonely and wanted to have and support a family again.
- Thus, the plaintiff married Ms. XXXXXXX Reyes in December 1998 in Honduras. She was citizen of Honduras, now Canadian. He
sponsored her with her two minor sons on or about January 4, 1999. The Defendant CIC instructed the plaintiff to sign the “Sponsorship Agreement IMM 1344 C (02-98) E” and “Undertaking IMM 1344 B (02-98) E” forms. He considered it a
moral and personal “gentlemen’s agreement” with Ms. Reyes. It did not contain the term “joint and several contract.” It was a severable bilateral agreement listing the obligations of both the sponsor and the sponsored person.
It was not a maintenance agreement. Ms. Reyes and Z.A. Simon were joint promisors towards each other.
- Ms. Reyes and her two sons arrived in Canada on or around December 27, 1999 as landed immigrants in the family class. (The DOB of XXXXXX is XXXX-XX-XX
while XXXXXXXX’s DOB is XXXX-XX-XX.) They resided in the plaintiff's rent-to-own apartment in Port Moody (BC) until January 1, 2001. Ms. Reyes spoke a basic English but they communicated mainly in Spanish. She was a healthy, smart and attractive
person, an ideal candidate for a job in Canada. She did not work before 2005. [Therefore, pursuant to the BC law, she did not qualify for any social benefit, only for a hardship assistance, loan or similar.] The plaintiff worked as a self-employed owner-operator
delivery driver in those days. The money that he made was sufficient to support his sponsored new family members but his wife kept spending more than his income.
- The plaintiff supported the sponsored person(s) in his home in Port Moody (British Columbia)
until January 1, 2001 regarding all costs related to dwelling, despite of his involuntary separation from Ms. Reyes after mid-June 2000, due to the following incident.
- One day, about mid-June 2000, the plaintiff had only $50 left and he had to buy
gas for his van. The sponsored immigrant wanted to take away that money but the plaintiff resisted. She started to push him around the table while hitting him and abusing him verbally, so he needed to defend himself. The RCMP of Port Moody was called but they
took no action since the sponsored boys were sleeping with the sponsor while their mother had disappeared until the morning. On the same morning, the plaintiff packed up his van and moved out, preventing further violence in front of the children. He found
a miserable room for rent (for $10 per day) where the wind blew the snow inside through the cracks in the winter. The plaintiff and Ms. Reyes did not have any separation agreement.
- In July 2000, the plaintiff tried to make peace with Ms. Reyes but
she preferred to live independently, not allowing him to return and sleep in his room. The plaintiff brought them some food occasionally. About August 2000, he sent a letter to the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga, explaining the real situation for the
CIC. As re remembers, he wrote that he loved Ms. Reyes and would support her if they formed a family, living together. He promised that he would pay all the costs of the sponsored persons related to dwelling and bills for services until January 1, 2001. (He
kept his word regarding that promise.) In his letter he stated that he had never promised to anyone to maintain two separate dwellings and, on the long run, he was unable to do so.
- Apparently the CIC forwarded the contents of the plaintiff’s
letter to the B.C. Ministry of Housing and Social Development. Thus, the Crown’s public servants had been aware of the problem long before the first social assistance payment to Ms. Reyes. (However, they have never contacted the plaintiff until 2007.)
- In or about September 2000, Ms. Reyes applied for social benefits in Port Moody, BC. The ministry involved has not sent any letter to the plaintiff and he has not received any phone call from any official either. The CIC has remained silent as well. The
Crown has not sent him any notification regarding the status of his wife’s application for social benefits.
- Apparently, she started to receive benefits from the Government of BC in October 2000. Thus, a default of the Sponsorship Agreement took
place in October 2000. Pursuant to ss. 15 (1)(a)(i), 15 (1)(b)(i), 15 (1)(c)(i), 15 (1)(d), 15 (3) and 17 (1) of BILL 14 – 1996 or BC BENEFITS (INCOME
ASSISTANCE) ACT and ss. 118. (2) of the Immigration Act, 1976 [that came into power in 1978],or, the Sponsorship Agreement, theBC Government or its Minister could have brought a court proceeding against the plaintiff but such
proceeding has never taken place. Or, the said BC Minister could have granted hardship assistance for Ms. Reyes, pursuant to ss. 4 (a). of the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act. Or, pursuant to ss. 9 (1)(a) of the
same Act, the Minister may have taken action if Ms. Reyes has failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to search for suitable employment.
- In 2000 or 2001, Zoltan A. Simon fell behind his obligation to pay the monthly $300 child support
for his 15-year old son Eric (by his mother and guardian, Ms. XXXXX Ortega), residents of Surrey, BC.
- By January 1, 2001, the plaintiff lost his nice rent-to-own apartment in Port Moody, that was his investment for about two years, due to the earlier
incident with Ms. Reyes.
- In or about March 2001, the BC ministry responsible for the administration of child support started to garnishee the pay cheques of the plaintiff at Reliable Couriers (Coquitlam, BC). The said ministry sent 50% of his gross
income – about 75 or 80% of his net income – to Ms. Ortega, then wife of Mr. XXXXXX. The garnishment by the BC ministry took place unlawfully. They disobeyed the law prescribing that the portions of gross income necessary for the debtor to spend
as expenditures, in order to maintain his business, should have taken into consideration. Thus, the plaintiff ended up on welfare while two women – both supported by wealthier men – tried to garnishee him. The plaintiff tried to get help from Legal
Aid on Kingsway in Burnaby (BC) but they said his situation was too complicated. They were unwilling to assist him. (In reality, no Legal Aid office in Canada seems to be allowed to help the victims of government torts.)
- By the summer of 2001 the
plaintiff understood that the smart and attractive Ms. Reyes had found a boyfriend in the person of XXXXXXX, a wealthier neighbour living on the same floor. The boyfriend supported her and her sons financially for five years, until he ended up in
bankruptcy due to their overspending.
- Therefore, although the plaintiff wanted to work and support his family members, he was disabled to do so. [In general, an average person cannot survive on 20 or 25% of his or her net income.] The plaintiff
was on social benefits for 11 months and he filed for bankruptcy at that time. He hated to appear as a “welfare bum” and rather “fled” to a pen-friend overseas. He left BC on January 31, 2002 for Brazil where he resided in exile
for 19 months. In the meantime, most of his documents, books and notes – that had been stored in the house of his daughter’s schoolmate – have been thrown to the garbage or perished.
- The plaintiff, Z.A. Simon, divorced Ms. Reyes
in January 2002 as he remembers.
- Regardless the uncertainty of his future, the plaintiff returned to Canada from Brazil. He was afraid to return to BC so he lived at a homeless shelter near Toronto or Brampton, for about two months, then he moved
to Arnprior, ON.
- During the year 2002 and/or 2003 the debtor’s driver’s licence was suspended but was reinstated when he became a discharged bankrupt upon his return from Brazil.
- On or about November 18, 2003, the plaintiff received
a response signed by the Hon. Martin Cauchon, then Canada’s Minister of Justice. The letter was polite but contained only beautiful words without any solution regarding the BC ministry’s unlawful garnishment action.
early in 2004, he filed a sponsorship application for Ms. BXXXXXXX, citizen of Brazil. More or less a year has passed but the CIC remained silent about it. In January or February 2005, Ms. BXXXXXXX left him for an 89-old rich man (who died two
years later). Therefore, the plaintiff sent a letter to the CIC Processing Centre and cancelled his proposed sponsorship for her. This took place in or before March 2005. At that point the Crown (CIC and BC) showed no indication that the
plaintiff would have owed any debt to any ministry. (Later he understood that the federal policies regarding sponsorships were in a confused state in those days.)
- In March 2005, the plaintiff sent a birthday card to Ms. Reyes. Soon he learned that
she had just broken up with Mark, her boyfriend. The plaintiff suggested to Ms. Reyes to cohabit again and form a family but she wanted to remain independent, living separately.
- Ms. Reyes improperly and unnecessarily received social benefits from
the Province of B.C. from October 2000 to June 2005 but the Crown failed to inform the plaintiff about it. She received social benefits for almost five years while the administrators of BC sent her to several English language courses for about four years.
This way the Province unilaterally removed the sponsored person from the work force of BC. A single mother cannot work after a full time study five days a week: she had to spend some time with her sons.
- In or about June 2005, the plaintiff learned
from Ms. Reyes that the proper BC Ministry started to encourage her to get employment, so she has accepted the first job offered to her by the agents of that Ministry.
- In 2006, the ministers or leaders of the CIC and the CRA signed agreements
with each other in order to facilitate the garnishment of the sponsors in default. They published two documents, named “IP 2” and “MuO”, primarily for the use of their administrators. These two policies disagreed with
the legislation but enabled the administrators to eliminate the requirements as for the Court’s involvement since the documents emphasized only the Crown’s rights and not its obligations, claiming that every sponsor had a valid contract
both with the Minister of CIC and the sponsored person(s). Please refer to paragraphs 5.18, 6.9, 12 and 16 of the IP 2 policy. Under paragraph 5.29 the text goes, “…may be recovered from the sponsor and/or co-signer.” Those policies
did not mention or emphasize the need for the Court’s involvement anymore.
- In 2006, the Crown (Canada and BC) failed to notify the plaintiff about this important material change (that the Crown had become a party to his Sponsorship Agreement,
and that the Agreement had become a contract). Therefore, the Crown prevented the plaintiff from studying the relevant legislation, or, to consult a lawyer. For this reason, he was disabled to defend himself at the IRB/IAD hearing, resulting that he has been
separated from his present wife between April 2007 and today.
- The plaintiff was unaware of those policies (IP 2 and MuO) until about 2008 or 2009. He has never received or signed any contract form with any ministry or government.
He wanted “to enter into a legally binding Agreement” with BC or Canada but no one sent him anything like that to sign. The Defendant Crown has not been signatory to any written contract or agreement with the plaintiff at all.
- In the summer
of 2006, the plaintiff began a correspondence with Ms. Zuan Hao ZHONG (a.k.a. Zhong Zuan Hao in Chinese). They had common goals, including getting married soon and have a baby. Thus, they got married in December 2006 in Guangzhou City, in the People’s
Republic of China. The plaintiff filed the necessary documents to sponsor his new wife, Ms. Zhong (d.o.b. XXXX-XX-XX) and her 15-year old son, Jian Feng YE (d.o.b. XXXX-XX-XX).
- Due to some red tape in both countries and the numerous required documents,
the plaintiff submitted his Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking forms with the supporting material to the CIC Processing Centre on or about February 15, 2007. He attached a bank draft in the amount of $1,190 for the required fees. Since then the CIC is using
- On or about March 30, 2007, he received a letter from the CIC Processing Centre in Mississauga. In it, Officer RS stated, "We are pleased to advise that you have met the requirements for eligibility as a sponsor…” However,
the same letter indicated that the Consulate General of Canada in Hong Kong – the visa office as the ultimate authority – may not accept their application in case of any debt to the Crown. [Strangely, this information seemed to indicate that the
CIC Case Processing Centre had been unaware of the plaintiff’s sponsorship debt, and only the proper visa officers abroad had been able or allowed to make a final decision.]
- Soon the plaintiff learned that the application for the permanent
Canadian residence of his wife and his stepson had been dismissed. Since they have passed their medical tests, the only reason of the refusal was the alleged sponsorship debt of the plaintiff. This circumstance has been stated clearly on the documents
issued by the Consulate General of Canada in Hong Kong, dated on or about April 26, 2007. The Canadian authorities sent a similar statement to Ms. Zhong at about the same time.
- On or about March 20, 2007, a form named “Social Services Information
Request” was sent from the CIC Processing Centre to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance of BC. (The Plaintiff received its copy after a long delay.) The printed name of the official does not appear on the form and the signature is missing
above the proper line. It is testified as “In accordance with the provisions of the federal/provincial Memorandum of Understanding to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and correct.” However, that MoU was not a legal
document. The officer has not testified that the Information Request satisfied the requirements of the IRPA and/or its Regulations and that a debt had been certified by the Minister against Zoltan A. Simon.
May 2007, the plaintiff(s) appealed the Immigration Officer’s decision at the IAD (Immigration Appeal Division) of the IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board). [He appealed to the Federal Court but he lost his immigration-related case in 2010. Canada’s
laws do not allow an appeal. There is no Court in Canada that would examine his situation. Due to this federal-provincial tort, his wife and stepson could never immigrate to Canada.]
- In 2007, the plaintiff – the innocent party – rescinded
his sponsorship agreement.
- The plaintiff had a court hearing in 2007, in Ottawa, under Federal Court File No. T-1758-07. Since he was waiting for his IAD hearing, his claim was dismissed as abuse of process.
- The plaintiff
pleads innocent in any breach of contract because he was unaware of any contract or agreement with the Crown. Also, he was unaware of the dollar amounts and number of months during which Ms. Reyes, the sponsored immigrant, received social benefits in Canada.
After a private investigation of six months, in or about October 2007, he received the first notice about the dollar amount of his alleged “sponsorship debt.” It was over $38,000. However, so far to date, British Columbia or Canada has not filed
any claim against him at any Court during all material times.
- Before 2008, the plaintiff has never received any summons, court order, a photocopy of the Minister’s certificate, or a Schedule II from any ministry or government authority; not
even a phone call from an agent or office of the Crown Defendants.
- On or about July 24, 2007, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Hon. Minister Diane Finley. On or about August 3, 2007, T. Gillies (Ministerial Enquiries Division) replied it, adding
that as the case was currently before the IAD, it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter further.
- In or before November 2007, the Revenue Services of BC or RSBC (Victoria, BC) sent a letter to the plaintiff, claiming that he had been indebted
to BC for $38,149.45 for his Sponsorship Default Program.
- The plaintiff did not have any sponsorship- or other debt-related contract or agreement with any, federal or provincial, ministry or government in all material times. Despite of this, the Government
of BC, in 2007 and/or 2008, originally demanded from him $38,149.45 in one payment without proper or legally acceptable explanation.
- The plaintiff, in 2007 or 2008, contacted the Ministry of Housing and Social Services of BC and offered to them
to start paying his alleged debt, without formally acknowledging a debt, in the same framework – the same number of payments over the same period – as it had been granted to Mr. Tieu, a Vietnamese that owed more than $101,000 to the Province of
BC due an irresponsible failure to support his sponsored parents. On the behalf of British Columbia, Ms. Penelope Lipsack as Counsel was the Crown’s representative in the matters with the plaintiff till about December 14, 2008 (the date of her last letter
to Z.A. Simon). Ms. Lipsack refused to accept the settlement offer of the plaintiff and did not propose a counter-offer or an alternative payment plan. Thus, since the plaintiff was unable to pay about $30,000 in one payment, no more negotiation has taken
place. (In 2009, the plaintiff sued Ms. Lipsack in her personal capacity at a Court in Victoria but he, obviously, could not succeed that way. His Writ of Summons was dismissed in 2009. The File Number was C090244.)
- In 2007 or early 2008, the RSBC
or another authority sent him a consent form to be signed by Ms. Reyes, instructing the plaintiff to contact her and returned the signed form to them. However, the plaintiff was unable to contact her. It seemed strange for the plaintiff: If those
social benefit payments to Ms. Reyes constituted his debt – and not the debt of Ms. Reyes – why was not he allowed to learn the amount of his alleged debt from the Crown?
- After almost eight years of complete silence following
the default, the provincial and federal authorities together began to garnishee his federal tax account, without any hearing or documentation, only acting on the RSBC’s request as follow. (His RSBC account No. is X11000006724.)
- On or about June
2, 2008, the B.C. Ministry of Housing and Social Services or the RSBC, without colour of right, sought and obtained funds from the tax account of the plaintiff, by conversion. The actual conversion took place in the CRA. The CRA intended to keep garnishee
the plaintiff’s funds in the amount of $38,149.45 plus a high compound interest that was not mentioned in any agreement signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff thought that the CRA owed him a duty of care just like a chartered bank. The plaintiff relied
to his detriment on the CRA as an agency that knew and obeyed the laws of Canada. The plaintiff relied on the paragraph of the Sponsorship Agreement with Ms. Reyes that the Crown may take moneys from a sponsor due to a default or breach of the agreement only
within “an action in a court of law” and that “The suit may be placed in any court in Canada having jurisdiction over claims against the Sponsor (or Co-signer) for breach of contract.”
- Thus, in 2008 and 2009, Crown servants
of the federal CRA wrongfully, knowingly, by tortuous conduct, released funds or monies from the 2007 and 2008 tax credits of the plaintiff for the Revenue Services of British Columbia (“RSBC” below).
- On or about June 17, 2008, the plaintiff
received a photocopy of his Income Tax Return Information from the CRA. The date of the assessment was June 2, 2008 for the tax year 2007. It indicated a refund or credit of $3,577.83 but he has never received any refund. It simply disappeared. Much later
he learned that, out of that amount, $136.15 had been taken as GST while $3,441.68 had been recovered by the (BC) Sponsorship Default Recovery program.
- After the garnishment of his tax account, between June 19 and June 27, 2008, the plaintiff
received a letter from the RSBC with a Financial Report form. The letter referred an outstanding obligation for $29,417.04 that the plaintiff did not understand: there was a discrepancy of several thousand dollars in the arithmetic. Also, the fact that the
form was received a few weeks after the garnishment had revealed the bad faith of the RSBC officers. Thus, the plaintiff had no opportunity to complain before the garnishment.
- On or about July 10, 2008, the plaintiff sent a very long and
detailed letter to the Revenue Services of British Columbia in Victoria, BC. (He attached his Financial Report form completed, signed as on June 8 that should correctly read July 8.) His letter contained many legal arguments, some of them about his violated
Charter rights. In the letter the plaintiff denied his debt to BC but claimed that the claim against him was illegal and unconstitutional. However, he authorized the Canada Revenue Agency to confirm his circumstances toward the RSBC. The plaintiff
has never acknowledged his “debt” and did not make any repetitive payments so he is not a confirmed or judgment debtor.
- On or about August 5, 2008, the plaintiff sent a long letter to the Canada Revenue Agency, Attention: Mr. Bill Baker,
Deputy Commissioner in Ottawa. Its subject was “Assistance requested in a legal and accounting controversy.”
- On or about August 18, 2008, the plaintiff received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency, signed by Patrick Bélanger.
It promised that his concerns will be given careful consideration.
- On or about August 20, 2008, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Hon. Rob Nicholson, then Minister of Justice. He has not received a reply to it.
- On or about September 3, 2008,
the plaintiff sent a letter to the Hon. Claude Richmond, Minister of British Columbia, or/and his two deputy ministers (Ms. Cairine MacDonald and Mr. Andrew Wharton), plus the RSBC. It contained an offer entitled “A proposed frame for settlement.”
He has not received any reply from them. About the same time (?), he sent a detailed letter to the Hon. Gordon Campbell, then Premier of BC, informing him about the torts and legal controversies.
- On or about September 22, 2008, the plaintiff requested
info from the Canada Border Services Agency regarding transit visa and return ticket requirements for his Chinese wife if she would spend a few months in Saint-Pierre et Miquelon (belonging to France) until her Canadian papers would be granted. He received
a reply, without any answer or suggestion.
- Between about September 30 and November 12, 2008, the plaintiff received a letter from the office of the Hon. Gordon O’Connor, then Minister of National Revenue, writing that the CRA was
unable to comment on his dispute with the Revenue Services of BC. The letter stated that the CRA and other federal and provincial government authorities have entered into an agreement to collect amounts owing. It added that the CRA did not determine who will
be identified for set-off action and a set-off action can only be suspended when the CRA is advised to do so by the originating department.
- Between September and November 12, 2008, the plaintiff began a correspondence with the Ombudsman BC office,
in which R. Brown (Complaints Analyst) and Judy Ashbourne were involved. Later the matter was concluded. They were unable or unwilling to solve any issues.
- On or about October 7, 2008, the plaintiff sent a letter of inquiry to the Ambassador of The
Netherlands in Ottawa, requesting advice about settling in that country or in its territories (in the Caribbean) in order to family unification since Canada’s red tape had not offered any solution.
- On or about October 24, 2008, he received a
letter from their Consulate in Vancouver, advising him that he could not apply for asylum before entering a country.
- On or about October 27, 2008, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Hon. Wally Oppal, Attorney General of BC, and to Ms. Penelope Lipsack,
Crown Counsel in Victoria, BC. A bit later he sent a photocopy of this letter to the IRB/IAD Registry as well.
- On or about November 4, 2008, the plaintiff sent a long letter to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Tax Centre in Winnipeg, requesting an
adjustment for the year 2007.
- On or about November 7, 2008, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Embassy of Spain in Ottawa. It was similar to the letter sent to the embassy mentioned above.
- On or about November 13, 2008, the plaintiff received
a letter from Sylvia Dalman (CRA in Burnaby-Surrey, BC) regarding his notice of objection received on July 31, 2008. She wrote that his objection was not valid.
- On or about December 23, 2008, the plaintiff had an airplane ticket from Calgary to Toronto,
in order to present his case at the IRB/IAD hearing. About twenty flights were cancelled in Calgary on that day, due to inclement weather. The plaintiff’s plane took off by a delay of 3.5 hours and arrived in Toronto with the same delay. He missed his
hearing by two hours, and lost about $800 in travel costs for nothing. In the IAD Registry, he wrote and filed a request for a new hearing. The Registry granted him a new hearing in its letter dated on or about December 24, 2008.
- On or around January
12, 2009, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (then Minister of National Revenue) sent a letter to the plaintiff.
- On or around February 26, 2009, the plaintiff received an e-mail message from the CIC – Ministerial Enquiries Division. [He assumed
that it was sent by the Hon. Jason Kenney since it had followed his earlier letter sent to that Minister.] The title of the message was, “Your Wife's Application Status / Structure of the Immigration and Refugee Board.” It said, “…your
comments regarding the harmonization of federal and provincial laws with regard to immigration have been duly noted.”
- On or about March 15, 2009, the plaintiff wrote a letter to Canada’s Ambassador in Rome (Mr. A. Himelfarb), regarding
“Request for info about official procedures of immigration or political asylum” [for a Canadian citizen in order to settle in Italy]. He has not got a reply.
- On or about May 15, 2009, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Hon. Minister Diane
Finley regarding his concern about garnishing his future pension benefits if he needed to settle abroad. He has not received a reply. A copy of the letter was sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as well but the plaintiff has not received any reply.
- On or about May 27, 2009, the plaintiff filed an application for leave and judicial review to the Federal Court for an Order of Mandamus to require the IAD to issue a decision in this appeal. A Notice of Appearance was filed on June 4, 2009. On or about
on September 16, 2009, the Court dismissed the case.
- On or about June 4, 2009, the B.C. Ministry of Housing and Social Services or the RSBC, without colour of right, sought and obtained funds from the tax account of the plaintiff, by conversion. The
CRA transferred the $100.43 credit balance of the plaintiff’s personal tax account to the (BC) Sponsorship Default Recovery program, apparently to the RSBC.
- Or on about July 8, 2009, the plaintiff received a letter from Service Canada, signed
by Sharon Shanks. The letter threatened the plaintiff (and apparently tried to coerce him to pay) by claiming that a creditor “may obtain a garnishee summons without proceeding to court.” That principle was false and violated ss. 67.
(a) of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985 because Crown debts (like the future CPP pension benefits of the plaintiff) were not assignable.
- On or about August 7, 2009, the plaintiff received another letter from the Hon. Jean-Pierre
Blackburn, Minister of National Revenue, regarding the set-off action on his income tax account. Mr. Blackburn considered the plaintiff’s matter with the CRA closed.
- On or about August 13, 2009, the plaintiff participated in a hearing by the
IAD/IRB in Calgary by videoconference. See Simon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),2009 CanLII 85533 (CA IRB). The IAD File Number was VA9-00194, with Client ID No. 2092-5897.
- Between October 23 and 27, 2009 the plaintiff filed and
served his statement of claim with the Writ of Summons, at the Supreme Court of BC (Vancouver), under the case number S097926. Neither of the two Crown defendants has submitted a Notice of Appearance by January 30, 2010 although (on or about November 19, 2009),
Mr. Peter Bell, Counsel to the Government of Canada sent him a letter regarding it. The plaintiff made a minor mistake in the style of cause, showing Deputy Attorney General instead of Attorney General. The Registry was unwilling to correct it, or, to give
direction. Therefore, the plaintiff served and filed an updated pleading inquiring about the status of the proceedings on January 30, 2010.
- On or about November 17, 2009, the IAD made a decision in which the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.
One can see the Crown’s strategy from the dates. In order to gain time, the Crown kept pressuring the IAD and the IRB to delay the matters and decisions related to Z.A. Simon and Ms. Zhong as a punishment of the plaintiff for his 2007 court case (FC).
From May 2007 to November 2009 approximately two and a half years passed in a limbo on Canada’s behalf.
- Before the end of 2009, the plaintiff applied for judicial review at the Federal Court to revise the IAD decision. His application for leave
and judicial review was dismissed. Pursuant to ss. 72. (2) (e) of the IRPA, “no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory judgment.” This
paragraph seems unconstitutional. It should perhaps add, “…in cases where national security is involved, except questions of debts or pure questions of law.”
- On or about January 8, 2010, the Government of Canada (Ministry
of Finance, Winnipeg) sent a notice to the plaintiff regarding his [alleged] outstanding debt. He received similar statements regularly.
- On or about January 26, 2010, the plaintiff sent a belated reply to the letter of Sylvia Dalman at the CRA (Burnaby-Surrey,
BC). He requested to learn the CRA’s position regarding the next legal step.
- On or about February 3, 2010, the plaintiff received a brief letter from the Canada Revenue Agency (Appeal Division in Surrey BC), signed by Sylvia Dalman, stating
that the CRA had no jurisdiction concerning the Citizenship and Immigration Canada sponsorship program and any indebtedness that may arise from a sponsorship agreement.
- On or about February 22, 2010, the plaintiff sent a letter from China to Peter
Bell, Crown Counsel. He sent its copies to The Hon. Jerry McHale (Deputy A.G. of BC), The Hon. Rob Nicholson (A.G.), The Hon. John H. Sims (Deputy A.G.), and the Civil Registry of the Supreme Court of BC. In it, the plaintiff referred to other cases, like
“Citation: 2006 FC 1053” in the Federal Court of Appeal, Court File No. A-417-06 where him (i.e., Mr. Bell) and The Hon. John H. Sims, Q.C. are shown side by side, marked as “for the Respondent.” Also, the plaintiff referred
to Delisle v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General),  2 S.C.R. 989, and Bohman v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General) (1994), 354 C.P.C. (3d) 25 (Ont., Ct. (Gen. Div.)). In both cases the Deputy Attorney General was named as Defendant and such
wording did not constitute a fatal error for the procedure or the filing. The plaintiff reminded Mr. Bell that ss. 24. (2) (a) and (c) of the Interpretation Act confirmed such liberal interpretation: a “Minister”
and a “Deputy Minister” were interchangeable terms.
- On or about March 8, 2010, Zuan Hao Zhong, the second plaintiff sent a detailed letter from Guangzhou City (China) to The Hon. Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
in Ottawa. The main controversial issues have been well explained in the letter but she has never received any answer from the Minister’s person.
- On or about March 9, 2010, the plaintiff received a reply from Julie Lauzon, representative of
the Tax Court of Canada, following his inquiry. Their decision was that his complex case did not belong to their jurisdiction.
- Or on about April 21, 2010, Ms. Jacquie Sewell, Manager of Registry Operations, sent him a letter. [The Registry refused
to reimburse the plaintiff’s fees of $208 although the case came to a limbo because the Registry was unwilling to remove the words “Deputy” from the style of cause and none of the defendants have filed and served the required Notice of Appearance.
The Writ of Summons had two volumes. Volume 2 began with page 82, and the chapter entitled “List of similar (tort) case law precedents” began on page 246.]
- On or about May 21, 2010 the plaintiff sent a “Notice of Discontinuance”
to The Civil Registry at the Vancouver Law Courts, addressed to Ms. Sewell. The document was received within a week.
- On or about June 1, 2010, the plaintiff received a letter from the Federal Court Registry (Re. Mr. Lafrenière).
or about June 8, 2010, the Hon. Mr. Justice Zinn delivered an Order of the Federal Court against the plaintiff. The verdict stated, “The question of whether he had an agreement with Canada may or may not have been determined between Canada and himself
by the decisions of the IAD and this Court in IMM-6265-09; however, it is clear to me that his current dispute is not directly with the Federal Government but with the Province of British Columbia. In this respect it is noted that he commenced litigation in
the British Columbia Superior Court against both the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada with respect to these financial claims. He says that the action has been discontinued by him but the Court record shows otherwise.”
for the last sentence, the plaintiff claims that the BC Registry’s employees committed fraud. On or about June 6, 2010, they issued a false statement – perhaps to the request of Crown Counsel – in a letter stating that the plaintiff’s
action had not been discontinued on that certain day in June while they received the discontinuation request about week earlier, in May.
- Justice Zinn continued, “What is critical is that the plaintiff’s financial dispute is not directly
with Canada and the real dispute he has does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. In my view, he should be seeking his declaration and repayment of the funds taken illegally, in his view, against the Provincial authorities in the B.C. Superior Court,
either in the action already commenced or in a new one.”
- Several ministers and ministerial officials have been involved by correspondence with the plaintiff, between 2007 and present, but they all failed to act in order to reach a legally acceptable
solution. Some of their names are as follow: The Hon. Diane Finley, The Hon. Jason Kenney, T. Gillies, Sylvia Dalman, Patrick Bélanger, The Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn, amongst several other federal officials with whom the plaintiff had correspondence.
- In a series of legal controversies, the federal administrators unexplainably kept relying on the personal decisions of one or a few provincial administrators that seemed to be unfamiliar with the laws of Canada but were protected by their provincial superiors.
The federal and provincial administrators relied on each other’s policies and ignored many of the related federal and provincial laws. More than thirty paragraphs or subparagraphs of the (mainly federal) legislation have been knowingly violated by the
- 100.The above mentioned federal administrators, by prejudice and in bad faith, failed to accept or consider any contrary evidence form the plaintiff.
- The ministers and public servants of the CIC and the CRA kept
shifting the responsibility to each other – or to British Columbia – that is one of the indicia of their bad faith.
- On or about August 6, 2010, Mr. Steve Harrison phoned the plaintiff from the RSBC. He sounded like an angry young man.
His voice was intimidating. On that day (or, maybe at another occasion) Mr. Harrison threatened him that BC would take him to Court if he did not pay. (The plaintiff was glad that finally a Court could hear his case or problems and urged Mr. Harrison and the
RSBC to start such action.)
- The plaintiff (previously appellant) has not received a copy of the Order of the FCA dated 10 January 2011. He found it by coincidence on the Internet by a search at CanLII on February 5, 2011. Therefore, he has been totally
unaware of the judgment before the latter date. (His previous enquiries remained unsuccessful until February 9.)
- On or about January 23, 2011, the plaintiff sent a long letter to His Excellency David Mulroney, Ambassador of Canada, to Beijing. He
attached a long and relevant legal material describing the legal controversies and errors involving the Crown: namely, a written version of his speech at the FCA hearing of December 2, 2010 (File Number: A-237-10). He has not received any reply to the letter.
- On or about May 19, 2011, the Order of Madame Justice Snider (Docket: T-639-10) stated, “In pith and substance, this claim is one against the BC Provincial Crown, even though the actual garnishment was made by the Defendant” [Canada]. The plaintiff
claims that Ms. Snider made several crucial errors in her verdict. In it, she wrote “statement of claim” five times because she had not studied properly the Amended Statement of Claim, only the original Statement of Claim.
- On or about
May 30, 2011, the plaintiff sent a request to the Registrar of the Federal Court in Edmonton, attention to Ms. Champagne, requesting filing info like a photocopy of the ministerial certificate and/or its court file number, regarding his alleged debt that arose
- Several weeks later, as the plaintiff recalls, Ms. Champagne, top administrator of the Registry in Edmonton, told him in person that they had been unaware of such document.
- On or about August 23, 2011, the plaintiff sent a letter to
the Hon. Diane Finley, Minister.
- On or September 2, 2011, the plaintiff received a reply for his above mentioned letter from B. Bertrand (Service Canada).
- On or about October 18, 2011, Ms. Sharon Shanks (Service Canada) sent a letter to him.
- On or about January 12, 2012, the plaintiff sent a request to the Federal Court’ Ottawa Registry, requesting a statement regarding the status of his alleged certified debt.
- On or about January 24, 2012, B. Balazic (Acting Senior Registry
Officer of the Federal Court in Ottawa) sent a letter to the plaintiff. It listed the court proceedings in which Z.A. Simon were shown to be a party. However, it failed to provide any the description or file number of any debt certification related to the
instant plaintiff. The Courts Administration Service tried to cover up the fact of the missing ministerial certificate.
- On or about February 13, 2012 – during the hearing of case number 2012 FCA 49 – oneof the judges
stated in the courtroom that if there was any error or omission [in the administration of Zoltan A. Simon’s files related to his financial or immigration matters] it took place in British Columbia. She added that the word “Minister” [in ss.
146. (1) of the IRPA] probably referred to the minister of a province.
- On or about February 17, 2012, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Hon. Diane Finley but he has not received a reply.
- On or about
March 9, 2012, the plaintiff served and submitted his Notice of Appeal as of right to the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada for filing.
- On or about March 28, 2012, the plaintiff received a letter from the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada.
It was signed by Mary Ann Achakji, Registry Officer. It stated that they, after careful evaluation, have determined that the plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal (submitted for filing under s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act) cannot be
processed as an appeal as of right. They treated the Notice of Appeal as an application for leave to appeal.
- On or about May 24, 2012, the plaintiff received the letter of Ms. Barbara Kincaid, legal counsel for the Registry of the Supreme Court of
Canada. She wrote that there was “no automatic right to appeal” in civil cases so the document could not be filed. Thus, she contradicted and contravened the French version of 61. of the Supreme Court Act that prescribed automatic appeal
(without the application for leave to appeal stage).
- On or about June 4, 2012, the plaintiff sent a request for Mr. Roger Bilodeau, Registrar of the SCC, for filing data and the status of his payments involving fees and security deposit.
the same time, or earlier, the officers of the SCC Registry returned the plaintiff’s security deposit (of $500.00) and his filing fees related to the filing of his previously submitted Notice of Appeal. By doing that, they contravened ss. 17.(1)
and 17.(4) of the Financial Administration Act since they failed to deposit public monies to the Receiver General’s account. (The plaintiff’s pleadings were bound to fail because the courts below qualified his pleadings
as vexatious or abuse of process. Thus, the administrators lost those amounts that Canada would have received.) Note: an identical tort situation took place in May/April 2014.
- On or after June 18, 2012, the plaintiff received the Response
of the Crown in the file #34831 that was a deposition into the Registry of the SCC. In it, the Crown’s Counsel – Ms. XXXXXXXXXX – kept repeating a false statement, claiming that the plaintiff had had claims only against British Columbia (and
not against Canada). Counsel’s false statement was determinative for the three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. They fully relied on her statement while perhaps they did not have time to read the plaintiff’s pleadings in full.
on about July 20, 2012, the plaintiff received the Order of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer (Federal Court, it does not seem to be posed by CanLII). It dealt with his claim’s subject as a “future hypothetical decision.” She stated that the federal
laws were emanations of provincial law so she denied jurisdiction.
- On or about September 4, 2012, the plaintiff received a reply from the Government of BC (Victoria) for his earlier letter addressed to their Ministry of Finance. It was signed by Sasha
Joyce (Consolidated Intake, Information Access Operations). The letter promised the plaintiff an access to information regarding the legal basis of his garnishment by the RSBC.
- On or about October 4, 2012, the plaintiff received a photocopy
of an Order of the Supreme Court of Canada, bearing the initial of the Chief Judge. In it, his application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-232-11, 2012 FCA 49 (CanLII), 2012 FCA 49, dated February 13, 2012, was
- On or about October 11, 2012, the plaintiff received a brief statement from the Government of British Columbia implying that there was no record on file regarding his sponsorship debt. The file number was FIN-2012-00205, as a response for
his request with their Ministry of Finance. Their document stated, “Although a thorough search was conducted, no records were located in response to your request. Your file is now closed.” It was signed by Russ Fuller, Manager, Business and Infrastructure
Team, Information Access Operations.
- As for the discovery or discoverability rule for claims based on fraud, the instant plaintiff discovered on or about October 4, 2012 that the false testimony of Ms. Bridges resulted in the loss of his appeal in
the SCC, and consequently the loss of his hard work and efforts to compile pleadings for three years. On the other hand, he only discovered on or about October 11, 2012 that the Province of BC had not possessed any document or legal basis for his garnishment
and no ministerial certificate had existed at all.
- On or about October 24, 2012, the plaintiff – in the possession of the above mentioned clearance statement of the BC Government – served and filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding
the SCC Order of October 4, 2012. He attached a copy of the said BC document.
- On or about October 30, 2012, the plaintiff received the letter of Michel Jobidon (SCC Registry). It said that the Registrar will decide whether the plaintiff’s Application
[for Reconsideration] would or would not succeed. (No legislation authorizes the Registrar to do that.)
- During 2012 or 2013, the Plaintiff informed the Head of the Courts Administration Service regarding the long list of torts and unlawful controversies,
regarding the lack of procedural fairness, in the whole administration service nationwide. He has not received any answer. (It seems probably that Mr. Gosselin or one of his deputies had orchestrated those torts.)
- On or about December 4, 2012, an
Order of the FCA (Stratas J.A.) was issued, in A-367-12.
- On or about December 18, 2012, the plaintiff received a personal letter from Mr. Bilodeau, Registrar of the SCC. It was not an Order. In it, the Registrar decided that the plaintiff’s
Motion did not have a merit to succeed and section 78. of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada did not apply to his matter. (That paragraph would allow a review of an Order of the Registrar. However, there was no Order of the
Registrar, only his personal letter. There is no provision in the law how to appeal a personal letter.)
- On or about January 18, 2013, Zoltan A. Simon submitted his Appeal Book for filing (A-367-12). The FCA Registry in Edmonton refused to file it,
claiming that it was received beyond the deadline because the rule for computation of time regarding Christmas recess did not apply in his case. The Registry forced him to submit a motion for extension of time.
- On or February 10, 2013, the plaintiff
submitted his Notice of Constitutional Question(s) to the Attorneys General of each province.
- On or about March 14, 2013, The BC Ministry of Justice (Christine Lloyd) informed the plaintiff that the A.G. of BC will not be appearing [regarding the
- In mid-March 2013, the plaintiff filed for personal bankruptcy at BDO Canada Limited in Red Deer. If he pays $200 monthly for two years and keeps filing his monthly statement of his income and expenses while
remaining within the guidelines regarding his income, he would be a “free man” again in March 2015. Then he would not be an undischarged bankrupt, so he may file at the CIC a new sponsorship agreement (?) for his wife Ms. Zhong who may be allowed
to enter Canada after, say, another seven years of limbo.
- On or about March 22, 2013, the Honourable Mr. Justice Evans (FCA) delivered an Order. In it, he held that the Christmas recess should not have been included in computing time so he ordered
that the Appeal Book to be filed, without the need for extension of time. He added that pages 37-60 of the Appeal Book “are not to be referred to in the conduct of” that appeal. He ordered that pages 37-60 of the Appeal Book are struck, and may
not be referred to.
- Unnamed administrators of the FCA Registry, in bad faith, misinterpreted the Order of the Hon. Mr. Justice Evans. They physically removed pages 37-60 from the bound book. They truncated it by a knife or blade, in order to make
those issues disappear from the court files. [The prescribed and correct way in common law is to cross the applicable sections by horizontal or other lines across the page, without cutting the pages.] Mr. Stephen Green of the FCA Registry returned all
copies of those pages, all the five sets, to the plaintiff in order to make their traces disappear from the Registry’s records. This is a fraud on the Crown’s behalf. (One can see in Krpan v. The Queen, 2006 or A.M. v. Matthews,
2003 that the word “struck” means crossing over the text by horizontal lines.)
- In about this time, the plaintiff received a copy of a booklet entitled Representing Yourself in the Supreme Court of Canada, Volume I (a guide published
by Mr. R. Bilodeau, or the Registry of the SCC). The booklet tortuously omits section 61. of the Supreme Court Act, just like the official website of the SCC Registry with the step-by-step filing instructions.
- The plaintiff
received a copy of the Order of Madam Justice Dawson dated May 30, 2013. The Order reinterpreted rule 346.(2) of the Federal Court Rules, changing the legislation’s word “serving” into “filing.” That
was patently unreasonable so the plaintiff appealed it. So far, the Courts Administration Service ignored and silenced his appeal: an extreme procedural unfairness, a tort. There is no Court decision regarding the fate of that appeal since June 2013.
- Early in 2013, the unprofessional, vague, “Dodonaic” or controversial Order of Mr. Justice Marc Nadon initiated another unfairness. He failed to specify or identify the documents in question by name, and there were several pending motions.
The Registry, in bad faith, arbitrarily interpreted his Order and returned too many of those documents to the plaintiff. (Mr. Harper, observing Mr. Nadon’s potential usefulness for him, soon appointed Mr. Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada.)
- On or about February 18, 2014, the Order of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the instant plaintiff in Simon v. Canada, 2014 FCA 47 (CanLII).
- On or about March 14, 2014, the plaintiff appealed the said Order. He served
and submitted for filing his Notice of Appeal as of right, pursuant to s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act, alleging error(s) in law at the FCA.
- On or about March 24, 2014, the plaintiff received a letter from the Courts Administration
Service. They returned their only copy of his Notice of Appeal, contravening paragraph 60.(4) of the Supreme Court Act. (It is unlikely that the sender, Ms. Sinclair, acted on her own.)
- Between March 31 and April 10, 2014,
the Registry of the SCC sent a letter to Zoltan A. Simon, informing him that they had refused to file his document as a Notice of Appeal. It was signed by Ms. Nathalie Beaulieu, Registry Officer. She advised him to apply for extension of time and submit the
document as an Application for Leave to Appeal. Also, she returned his TD bank draft made out to the Receiver General for Canada, in the amount of $575.00 ($75 filing fee plus $500 security deposit). She has not listed the names of her colleagues that participated
in the conspiracy in order to contravene s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act but her word “We” in her letter indicated that she had not acted alone.
- On or about April 9, 2014, the plaintiff served and submitted for
filing to the SCC Registry his Motion to the Chief Judge or a Judge to state constitutional question(s). It appears that so far the Registry has not filed it yet. The administrators did not provide any reply or comment about it. (A Notice of Motion is independent
from a Notice of Appeal do the SCC Registry should have filed it if their conscience were clear.)
- On or about April 28, 2014, the plaintiff faxed to Ms. N. Beaulieu a document of five pages regarding the Registry’s filing dilemma, reminding
them to his new address. Up to date he has not received any reply. Everything at the SCC Registry seems to be in a limbo and everything disappears without a trace as if one would throw documents into a black hole – as an astronomer may express it.
- The legal framework in a nutshell:
- In this matter the main facts are relevant as follow:
- (A) There was no IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act)
yet in effect in January 1999 when – under the old Immigration Act and its Regulations – the plaintiff signed his earlier personal sponsorship agreement with Ms. Reyes;
- (B) A breach of the plaintiff’s sponsorship
agreement with her took place in October 2000 in Greater Vancouver when Ms. Reyes started to receive social assistance benefits from the Government of British Columbia under the old Immigration Act and its Regulations;
- (C) The plaintiff’s
alleged debt expired in or about October 2006, pursuant to the limitation laws of British Columbia and Canada in effect at that time;
- (D) A. Chau, Designated Immigration Officer of the Consulate General of Canada in Hong Kong – misled by other
Crown agencies and servants – dismissed Ms. Zhong’s application for her permanent residency on or about April 26, 2007, previously submitted to the CIC by Z.A. Simon in February 2007. The only reason of the refusal in April 2007 was the alleged
sponsorship debt of the plaintiff;
- (E) The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) began to garnish unlawfully the plaintiff’s tax credits on or about June 2, 2008 at the request of BC;
- (F) The plaintiff, Z.A. Simon, had several court cases or
hearings between 2007 and 2014: two in BC and about nine in other provinces, including one at the IRB/AID, three at the Federal Court, three at the Federal Court of Appeal and three (?) in the Supreme Court of Canada although the latter three are in a kind
of limbo, waiting for filing;
- (G) the plaintiff did not claim for damages against the Crown in any of the cases above that have ended by a valid and final court order following the last appeal of the plaintiff.
- The instant claim is for damages,
mainly for pain and mental distress, suffering and violations of the plaintiff’s Charter rights, with punitive damages, all of which are personal in nature. This claim is not requesting to state or answer constitutional questions that were the
central issues in most of his previous pleadings. However, in order to facilitate the work of this Honourable Court and that of the two (possibly new) Counsel on behalf of Canada and BC, all of the previous and unanswered constitutional questions are shown
on the website of the plaintiff, entitled www.correctingworldhistory.com.
- There is a condition precedent in the Sponsorship Agreement that – if a default or breach occurs – the sponsored person may/shall take the sponsor to a
Court of competent jurisdiction where the Minister may represent the sponsored person. Thus, the default or sponsorship debt claim may be converted into a certified debt registered and filed at the Federal Court. On failure of these, within the prescribed
time period, the sponsorship agreement is at an end – unless a second default takes place – because the condition precedent has not been performed. Another aspect of the condition precedent is even more significant: In October 2000, there was no
Court of competent jurisdiction in Canada that was allowed to deal with the severability clause of the Sponsorship Agreement, and there was no designated file in the Federal Court system where the ministerial certificates of sponsorship debts could be registered
or filed. The state of affairs in Canada’s court system in 1999 and 2000 did not allow the sponsorship agreements come to effect. Even today, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal are always unwilling to get involved regarding sponsorship
agreements although those have been signed on CIC forms. It is well known that immigration issues exclusively belong to Canada, not to the provinces.
- An even more crucial condition precedent is as follows. The CIC sponsorship agreement forms state,
“It is further agreed that damages will not be less than the total of all amounts actually received by the Immigrant and his or her dependents from any federal, provincial or municipal social assistance program in Canada after the breach has occurred.”
This means that the compilers of the CIC forms acted in bad faith, with prejudice and discrimination against the Canadian sponsors. Practically, the Crown’s wording here states that 100% of the financial responsibility belongs to the sponsors while the
sponsored persons always have zero responsibility. This is a prejudiced statement of discrimination based on nationality since it assumes that all sponsors (that are Canadians) are always unreliable, abusive, inclined to be dishonest and ignore their promises
while the sponsored aliens are always honest, never tell lies and are keen to support themselves by hard work. This unconstitutional condition is the cornerstone of the CIC sponsorship agreement. Thus, since the Charter cannot be violated, the CIC
sponsorship agreements are invalid all over Canada.
- Worse for the Crown, such absolute (or 100%) responsibility of the sponsors in giving their unconditional guarantees that the sponsored persons would never apply for social benefits is impracticable
and constitutes a physical impossibility. Such guarantee means that the sponsors are obliged, by all means, to prevent the sponsored persons from entering any office of the Crown in order to apply social benefits. The sponsors have no means to prevent the
Crown to pay monies unlawfully for ten years to a sponsored person, particularly where the administrators decide not to contact the sponsor at any time regarding the issues.
- About every third sponsored immigrant wants to leave his or her sponsor and
become independent a.s.a.p. Thus, the only practical solution for a sponsor to prevent a sponsored person from entering a government office is to lock him or her up as prisoner. (One may imagine a fragile lady that sponsored a 300-lbs heavy man from a Third
World country. The man, after landing in Canada, notices hundreds of beautiful women on his city’s streets, many of whom are smiling or winking at him. He cannot resist and wants to become independent from his sponsor wife. He applies for benefits in
the first office of the Crown. The wife’s only solution would have been his forceful confinement, so she could have kept him as her “sex slave” locked up in a room for ten years.) However, ss. 279. (2) (a) of the
Criminal Code states about forcible confinement, “Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
ten years…” Thus, the cornerstone of the Sponsorship Agreement is a condition that is a punishable offence under the Code. Such circumstance makes the plaintiff’s Sponsorship Agreement void ab initio.
the only 100% effective way for a sponsor to prevent a sponsored person from applying and receiving social assistance is only by committing a crime, an indictable offence. Therefore, due to this main condition precedent, the essence of the text on
the CIC sponsorship forms is unconstitutional, unlawful and prescribes a physical impossibility. It is typical maxim “ex turpi causa” situation that renders the sponsorship agreements invalid, a nullity from the legal and constitutional
point of view in cases where the sponsored person has no intention to stay with the sponsor. Please refer to paragraph 4 (3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 SOR/78-172 – under which the sponsorship agreement was signed
in 1999 and under which the default took place in 2000. It states, “The family class does not include a spouse who entered into the marriage primarily for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada as a member of the family class and not with the intention
of residing permanently with the other spouse.” The same Regulations adds, under ss. 6.1 (2), “Where a sponsor sponsors an application for landing of a member of the family class described in paragraph (h) of
the definition “member of the family class” in subsection 2(1) and that member is unable to meet the requirements of the Act and these Regulations or dies, the sponsor may sponsor the application for landing of another member of the family class
described in that paragraph.”
- The plaintiff claims that Ms. Reyes was unable to meet the requirements of these Regulations, as demonstrated above, since she was unwilling to cohabit with the plaintiff after her fifth or sixth month
in Canada. She did not qualify as a member of the Family Class. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to sponsor Ms. Zhong, his present wife since 2006.
- Pursuant to ss. 135. (a)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the default of the plaintiff in the Reyes undertaking began in October 2000, and ended in October 2006, pursuant to ss. 135.
(b)(ii) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and subsections 3. (5) and 9. (1) of the Limitation Act, RSBC 1996, c 266.
- The parties, in the plaintiff’s understanding,
generally agree on the material facts but widely disagree regarding the interpretation of the law. The matters before this Honourable Court consist of pure questions of law, or questions of mixed fact and law.
- Apparently, the Crown keeps applying
the following logic in its relevant policies: The Minister may certify a debt, or, he may go ahead with any garnishing action without certifying, registering and filing a debt at the Federal Court. Such approach violates 3.(1) of the Interpretation
Act, “Every provision of this Act applies, unless a contrary intention appears, to every enactment, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act.” The contrary intention is clearly expressed by subsections 146.
(1) and (2) of the IRPA: a default becomes real “debt” only by the registering and filing of a certificate of the Minister at the Federal Court and the latter (or the Minister of Justice) is obliged to inform the debtors about the certification
and registration of their debts. Also, the lawful ways are described in detail in the enactments and regulations related to garnishment, both federal and provincial.
- As for the administrators or employees of the SCC Registry, they are not judges
with absolute immunity, only public servants of the Crown. Their conspiracy – that steals power from the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and shifts it to certain members of the Cabinet – is plainly unconstitutional. It violates section
52. of the Supreme Court Act.
- The plaintiff inserts here a summary of his damages – including expenses and losses – related to his person, caused by the torts of the Crown in all material times. The purpose
of this table is to facilitate the Court’s prompt understanding regarding the items or amounts claimed.
- BALLPARK FIGURES FOR THE PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CODE:
False statement related to Crown Counsel
- B. Tort of material misrepresentation of the IRPA
- C. Tort of fraud or false pretences: $100,000 or $700,000 $400,000
- D. Misfeasance in public office=punitive damages for 7 yrs separation $2,818,200
- E. Tort of breach of trust
- F. Tort of fraudulent conversion
- G. Tort of interference and failure to deliver monies
- H. Tort of contravening several Acts of Parliament
- I. Tort of fraudulent conspiracy and attempt of conspiracy $700,000
- J. Tort of mental torture of the plaintiffs by conspiracies $700,000
- K. Tort of corruption, fraud on government
- L. Tort of facilitating terrorist activity against re-victimized sponsors $500,000
- M. Possession and laundering the proceeds of crime
- N. Unjust enrichment of the Crown by using CIC processing fees $1,190
- O. Restitution of the plaintiff’s tax credits taken
unlawfully in 2008 $3,542
- P. Crown’s unjust enrichment related to plaintiff’s tax returns 2009 -13 $12,500
- Q. The plaintiff’s losses due to his wasted travel costs caused by torts $14,120
- R. The plaintiffs’ loss due to need to maintain more than 1 household $56,800
- S. Tort of defrauding the public by deceit
- T. Violations of the plaintiff’s Charter rights, mental suffering $55,000
- U. Plaintiff’s losses due to the necessity to declare personal bankruptcy $4,800
- V. Aggravated damages for reduction of life expectancy by 7 years
- W. Plaintiff’s lost (past and future) earnings if he needs to live abroad $131,500
- X. The family’s damages due to loss of Canadian medical coverage
- Y. Plaintiff’s losses due to costs, orders and fees paid in 9 court cases $9,000
- Y. TOTAL LOSSES OF THE PLAINTIFFS CAUSED BY CROWN TORTS $9,806.452
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT(against both Crown Defendant)
- The plaintiffs seek an Order, Declaration or Declaratory Order stating that the case at bar satisfies the three-part Public Interest Standing
test set out in the Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII (SCC),  1 SCR 236, at 253; or, that the instant case involves questions of public importance;
- The plaintiffs are seeking
a Declaratory Order stating that Zoltan A. Simon’s signature is invalid and to be severed from his personal Sponsorship Agreement with Ms. Reyes, dated January 1999, because he has signed the agreement in the CIC form unconsciously;
- In the alternative,
the plaintiff is seeking a Declaratory Order stating that the federal and provincial laws of limitation have extinguished his alleged debt (regarding his sponsorship agreement with Ms. Reyes in 1999) in November 2006 because the Crown had not taken any self-help
action or Court procedure before November 2006 and no ministerial certificate exists in the files of the Federal Court or any Court stating his debt;
- The main plaintiff, Zoltan Andrew Simon, is seeking a Declaratory Order that his future CPP, OAP,
and GIS pension benefits cannot be automatically garnisheed by Service Canada without a specific order of a Court of competent jurisdiction;
- The plaintiff seeks an Order in the nature of Mandamus toward the CIC or its Case Processing Centre in Mississauga
that a Canadian visa shall be issued to Ms. Zhong as soon as possible because her application is still waiting for the final verdict since April 2007;
- In the alternative, if Ms. Zhong’s old CIC file cannot be reopened and the proceeding continued
or updated, the plaintiff seeks an Order or Direction of this Honourable Court for restitution of moneys in the amount of $1,190.00 (that he paid to CIC in February 2007 in fees);
- The plaintiff seeks restitution in the amount of $3,441.68 (taken from
him by the RSBC in June 2008) and $100.43 (taken from him by the RSBC in June 2009), a total of 3,542 dollars, with at least 6% interest per annum if applicable.
- The plaintiffs seek an Order regarding the amount payable to them – or
to Zoltan A. Simon – by the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia, [based on the several tort claims, the Criminal Code, and relevant common law authorities listed in this Notice of Civil Claim], jointly and severally or
solidarily. The plaintiffs are unable to suggest an exact dollar figure for the total amount, so they request this Honourable Court to establish an amount based on the table above. [It shows a total of $9,806,452. Deducting the items of $1,190 and $3,542 from
it, the total theoretical amount at this item would be $9,801,720 or less, at the discretion of the Court. Further, the plaintiff is unable to estimate the future losses of his pension benefits (CCP, OAS, and GIS) is he has no other choice for family unification
than to move and live abroad after a certain date.]
- The plaintiffs seek prejudgment and postjudgment interest, pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, [RSBC 1996] Chapter 79 where applicable. [The Crown kept calculating a compound
interest of 6% (3%+3%) per annum on the RSBC statements regarding the garnishable amounts. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that fairness would dictate the application of pre- and postjudgment interests at the same rate, 6% per year, payable by the Crown
- In addition, the plaintiff respectfully requests a grant of any further relief, order, direction or instruction as this Honourable Court finds fair and appropriate under the above circumstances. (He is apologizing for the extremely complex
nature of his pleadings and prayers.) [FOR CONTINUATION PLEASE SEE THE TEXT BELOW]
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS (for the claims of the plaintiffs:
a concise summary of the legal bases)
- A: Action in contract:
- The plaintiff’s action is framed both in contract and tort. The alleged Crown parties to the alleged
contract on which this action is based were the plaintiff and a Minister, apparently the Minister of Immigration (CIC). The action in contract is based on wrongs done to the plaintiff because he has never received a photocopy of that alleged contract.
- The Crown – either Canada or BC – claims that an alleged debt of the plaintiff, in the amount of $38,149.45, arose out of a contract. Thus, the financial subject-matter before this Honourable court is more than thirty-eight thousand dollars.
(Due to the unlawful garnishments on two counts, it has decreased to about thirty thousand dollars.) The amount involved here is definitely over $5,000 that is often a threshold in the Criminal Code. The two governments are adamant about the magnitude
of the amount involved.
- The plaintiff’s wife and stepson had no contract with Canada or BC. However, they are and have been clients of the CIC since February 2007, with an assigned client file number.
- On or about January
4, 2011, Ms. Zuanhao ZHONG and her son Jianfeng YE, citizens of China, assigned their rights in this action to the plaintiff personally by an official affidavit. It took place in the Guangzhou Notary Public Office in China, by a bilingual affidavit. They authorized
Zoltan A. Simon to represent them at any time in any Canadian court, primarily in legal and financial issues related to immigration, human rights, and work permits. Thus, the main plaintiff, Zoltan A. Simon, is bringing the action on behalf of his wife (Ms.
Zhong) and himself. The claim on Ms. Zhong’s behalf also contains the claim for damages for her son – Jian Feng YE – while the latter was a minor under her guardianship. Considering that he was a minor until his age of 19 years, based on
the laws of Canada, the interval of Ms. Zhong’s claim for damages on behalf of Mr. Ye started in April 2007 and ended on October 3, 2010.
- B: Action in tort:
- The action
in tort is complicated to characterize because it partly overlaps with the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud or false pretences, conversion or theft, abuse of power, misfeasance in a public office, conspiracy, money extortion, etc. These torts
are comparable to a pyramid that has been constructed by improper stones or bricks of many different colours. (In our case the different colours are the different torts that interlocking and overlapping with each other. However, studying the stones of a certain
colour only, taken out of context as floating in the air, the pyramid-shape would hardly appear.)
- Since we have a long list of independent and interlocking torts, the plaintiffs have no means to specify and repeat the names of the public servants
involved in each individual tort or count. As a general rule, at each tort claim, the so-called “Honourable tortfeasors” indicate or include the following federal ministers: Mr. Stephen Harper, Mr. Rob Nicholson, Mr. Jason Kenney, and Ms. Diane
Finley. Please refer to the full list of the Crown tortfeasors’ names on page 3 above. All of them acted knowingly, in bad faith, in order to get unlawful gains for the Crown by creating deprivation for the re-victimized sponsors (that had signed their
CIC forms before June 28, 2002) – including the instant plaintiff – and often ruining the lives of their families. They are the key persons that invented, approved, promoted or/and maintained most of the torts or several systems of tort. Under
certain claims below, where the tortfeasors were the employees of the SCC Registry, or administrators of British Columbia, that circumstance will be indicated or emphasized separately.
- There are and have been, in all material times, five major groups
of Crown conspirators as follow:
- (A) Ms. XXXXXXXXX, Counsel, with at least one of her superiors;
- (B) The top administrators of the CIC, CRA and the federal Ministry of Justice;
- (C) The top administrators or officials of the RSBC,
Ministry of Housing and Social Development of BC, Ministry of Finance of BC, and Ombudsman BC, with some moral support from the BC Ministry of Justice;
- (D) The top officials or administrators of the FC/FCA Registry in Edmonton, with the moral support
of the Courts Administration Service;
- (E) The administrators of the SCC Registry, including Mr. Bilodeau and one of his superiors.
- In our case, the entire structure of the Crown’s policies and tricks is false and unlawful. One cannot
study only one of them absolutely separately from the other torts, taken out of context.
- Fraudulent misrepresentations: The plaintiff alleges he relied upon to his detriment were printed on a CIC Sponsorship
Agreement form and a CIC Undertaking form that he signed in January 1999 for the immigration of a previous spouse named Ms. Reyes. Particularly, he relied on the paragraphs setting out the possibility of a suit at “any court in Canada having jurisdiction
over claims against the Sponsor” as a prerequisite, also the severability of the Sponsorship Agreement “by a court of competent jurisdiction.” These two paragraphs (16 and 18 of the agreement) with the severability clause extinguished his
suspicion and made him to sign the sponsorship undertaking documents for Ms. Reyes in 1999. These two items constituted the element of “causa sine qua non” in order to give his signature for the undertaking since (in 1999) he trusted the
knowledge and impartiality of Canadian judges in general if there would be any problem with Ms. Reyes. He loved the sponsored person and was certain regarding his own law-obedient conduct under any future circumstance.
- As a general rule of law, “It
is sufficient to allege malice, fraudulent intention, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person as a fact, without setting out the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.”
- In the case at bar, the plaintiffs respectfully submit,
the issues are related to a pyramid of power that has been carefully designed by the honourable tortfeasors by several unlawful elements. One cannot say that several such pyramids of power have been built by the Crown, totally independently from each other.
- A person with reasonable mind cannot imagine that tens of thousands of public servants revolted simultaneously from the laws of Canada as a “grassroots movement.” The Government of Canada would have notified the media regarding such problem.
Also, one cannot imagine such grassroots movement, revolt, or conspiracy of the Cabinet’s ministers against the Prime Minister of Canada. The media would have informed the country about such thing, and the P.M. would have ordered them to resign.
- Therefore, a reasonably thinking average Canadian can assume that the pyramid of power is associated with the person of the Prime Minister that must have known about the existence of such nationwide torts in four of his federal ministries. He may state
or swear by an affidavit that he had zero knowledge of such ongoing torts between 2006 and 2014. Or, he may show an official paper issued by his family doctor stating, say, that he had suffered by brain tumor or bipolar disorder during those years. Canadians
may accept such circumstance as an explanation but they are entitled to challenge the ministers’ unlawful actions and omissions that have turned Canada upside down, so to speak.
- However, people should keep in their minds the Nuremberg Trials
for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany. Hitler committed suicide but his ministers were prosecuted. If that trial was based on legal foundations and principles – and few people doubt
that – a somewhat similar conspiracy of Canadian ministers against innocent citizens may be and shall be prosecuted as well although they did not institute gas chambers for the re-victimized sponsors.
- Returning to the presence or requirement
of “other condition of the mind of” the public servants involved, the plaintiffs are unable to prove that thousands of public servants belonging to four federal ministries and two ministries of BC always acted recklessly or maliciously as individuals.
It is impossible to describe the mental state of thousands of persons. However, it is quite obvious that the four federal ministers and the leaders of four BC ministries or agencies acted in bad faith and maliciously on the long run since 2006. They have been
aware of their illegal actions and omissions. They knowingly maintained such policies in order to use the re-victimized sponsors as cash cows, by a money extortion scheme that often ruined the sponsor’s families.
- The bad faith element is clear
and obvious from the extents of the torts as nationwide, during eight years (2006 to present), involving more and more cover-ups or larger and larger cover-ups through increasing oppression placed on the plaintiffs and the civil servants involved. The peak
of such cover-ups is the heavy pressure on the administrators in several court registries, also the undue pressure placed on many federal judges in order to stop the plaintiff’s appeals and proceedings in general, mainly by refusing to file documents
that may hurt the Harper Government’s reputation.
- The plaintiffs do not claim that every civil servant involved acted in bad faith. Rather, all public servants involved were concerned about the possibility of losing their jobs or good positions
if they were unwilling to become part of the political pyramid: a common scenario in any dictatorship. However, the plaintiffs are entitled to sue each administrator of lower ranks on the basis of their negligence. There was not a single “whistleblower”
amongst them. Or, maybe there were a few but those persons lost their jobs immediately.
- The Government of Canada, the Minister of Immigration, and/or the Minister of Justice all had a duty both in contract and tort to use reasonable care in the preparation
of the printed CIC forms marked as “Sponsorship Agreement IMM 1344 C (02-98) E” and “Undertaking IMM 1344 B (02-98) E.” The accepted test seems to be restoration of the plaintiffs to the position in which they would have been if the
negligent misrepresentation had never been made. Some cases suggest that what the plaintiff can recover is what might be termed “out of pocket expenses”. In other words, he is entitled to be reimbursed for those costs and expenses which he has
incurred and has expended in reliance on the misrepresentation. Therefore, he may even be entitled to claim the reimbursement of his travel expenses – airplane tickets – related to the immigration of Ms. Reyes and her two sons, plus the CIC fees
charged for their immigration and visas – he has not claimed those costs in his table above – plus the costs of nine of his ten round trips to China and a wasted one to Toronto for an IAD/IRB hearing.
- Pursuant to subsection 4.
(1) of the IRPA, “Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is responsible for the administration of this Act. The plaintiff respectfully submits that the word “Minister” in ss. 146.
(1) and (2) of the IRPA refers to the Minister of Immigration (CIC) who is and has been responsible for the certification of sponsorship debt claims in any province or territory. So far the Minister has failed to register and file the plaintiff’s
alleged debt certificate at the Federal Court without delay, or within 30 days after the default. The default took place in October 2000, so the delay of the Minister would be about 14 years at the time of the hearing of this case while the limitation laws
of BC and Canada do not permit the prosecution of any debtor after six years of silence if no self-help action (garnishment) has taken pace and no court order has been delivered.
- Pursuant to the Sponsorship Agreement, starting at paragraph 18, “The
suit may be placed in any court in Canada having jurisdiction over claims against the Sponsor (or Co-signer) for breach of contract… 19. This Agreement is the entirecontract
between the Parties…” [Emphasis added.] These two words “contract” have been smuggled into the end of the sponsorship agreement or undertaking forms fraudulently, in bad faith. They do not change the fact that those CIC forms refer
to “Sponsorship Agreement”, not contract. On the other hand, if the Sponsorship Agreement was the entire contract between the parties, and the Crown was a party to the undertaking, the document called “Undertaking” is not part of the
- C: Invalid Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking:
- Sometimes a Court interprets the obligations of the sponsors* as absolute without exception. For example,
v. Khaleghi-Hashemian, 2002 MBQB 1 (CanLII), the Court stated: “Her liability, according to the words of the document, is virtually absolute.” Now, the instant plaintiff respectfully submits, the word or condition “absolute”
is not mentioned in the CIC Sponsorship Agreement or the Undertaking forms at all. This is a fatal and incurable mistake in the CIC forms in light of the Crown’s policies and the execution phase. On the other hand, if a Court of Manitoba reads the texts
of those two forms as stating the 100% financial responsibility of every sponsor regardless any legislation, any sponsor may interpret the text similarly. However, the Sponsorship Agreement and the Undertaking do not expressly state that they would overrule
the relevant legislation, including the federal laws referring to garnishments of debts. But why could an agreement of two individuals change or override Canada’s laws? Similarly, the CIC Undertaking form is a declaration – not a contract –
pursuant to the IRP Regulations, comparable to a person’s customs declaration towards Canada upon his arrival by plane. (Query: Does a person’s customs declaration influence or override Canada’s laws?)
- The Sponsorship Agreement
does not refer to any governing law, including common law. One exception is the “Immigration Act Regulations” cited in the Undertaking form but one cannot find such wording under “legislation” today by www.CanLII.org
so it is misleading. It seems that the intention of its compiler was to keep the sponsors in total darkness regarding any relevant law. *[Handwritten note for 29 added:] The Sponsorship Agreement promises that the sponsored person needs to work, and the sponsor's
responsibility is limited "to the shortfall only."
- The cornerstone of the CIC Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking constitutes an infringement of ss. 15. (1) of the Charter, Canada’s constitution, regarding
equality rights. It cannot be justified in a free and democratic society, and s. 1 of the Charter does not save it. As in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 497, some important factors
influencing the determination of whether (sub)sections of several acts and regulations have been infringed are, among others: (A) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue; (C) The
ameliorative purpose or effects of the impugned law upon a more disadvantaged person or group in society; (D) The nature and scope of the interest affected by the impugned law.
- The Sponsorship Agreement states that it is the “entire contract”
between the signatory parties. Therefore, the CIC Undertaking form is not part of the “contract.” The Undertaking states, “The Minister may take other actions to recover the debt from the Sponsor or the Sponsor’s spouse (if Co-signer).”
Many civil servants now interpret this mysterious sentence as “The Minister may take any other action that could prevail over the federal legislation.” (Perhaps, say, the Minister can garnishee the re-victimized sponsors without colour of right,
or send them to concentration camps.) The correct interpretation can be found in 118. (4) of the old Immigration Act, 1976. It is related to charges on the sponsors’ properties. Finally, The CIC Undertaking form associates the
legal action with a “situation of abuse.” Abuse could be a physical abuse between the parties, or, an abuse of the social benefit system.
- The paragraphs related to the Crown’s right to take the sponsor to a Court while representing
the sponsored person seem to be related to the sponsor’s abuse of the welfare system. (For example, the sponsor instructs the sponsored person to pretend a separation from the sponsor while they keep co-habiting in secret, so the sponsored person receives
welfare benefits by fraudulent means. It appears from the two CIC forms and s. 118. (2) of the Immigration Act, 1976 the that the word “may” referred such exceptional abuse situations as the legislative intent. Parliament
did not intend to punish every innocent person or sponsor that did not act unlawfully. If the legislative intent were the punishment of every innocent sponsor the wording in ss. 145. (2) of the IRPA would state, “the
amount … shall be recovered by Her Majesty in either or both of those rights,” instead of “the amount … may be recovered by Her Majesty.”
- The “may” above indicates the Court’s discretion, so it is
not a “must” for the Crown to recover the amounts. Nevertheless, a verdict of a judge nowadays may state that the word “may” in the IRPA always means “shall” or “must.” But, in a hypothetical case, a
situation may happen as follows: The same judge, after equating the words “may” and “shall” in his Order, flies to Hawaii for vacation. In a shop he finds a large sealed tin box. Its label reads: “Macadamia” nuts. It
may contain some peanuts. The judge buys the box, although it is not cheap. He takes it home for his wife’s birthday as the main present. The wife opens it and finds no macadamia nuts at all, only 100% peanuts. At first the judge considers to take
the distributor to court for fraud. Then he remembers his own verdict in which he stated that the word “may” is permissive, so the distributor was allowed to fill the box by peanuts only.
- The plaintiff have found that the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Fidelity and Casuality Co. of New York v. General Structures Inc.,  where a misinterpretation rendered the insurance contract invalid, and jjBarnicke Ltd. V. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada 
are good examples resembling his legal situation where the original or key issue is a nullified agreement or contract due to misrepresentation: the policies are null and void ab initio. The judgment of the Court, delivered by De Grandpré, stated:
“misrepresentation automatically nullifies the contract (art. 2490 C.C.).”
- Pursuant to ss. 145.(1) of the IRPA, “The following amounts are debts due to Her Majesty in right of Canada payable on demand: (a)
a debt incurred by Her Majesty for which any person is liable under this Act…” The plaintiff claims, it is respectfully submitted, that he is not liable for any debt “under this Act.” His Sponsorship Agreement of 1999 is not under
the IRPA because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act did not yet exist in 1999. Therefore, the Crown servants’ reasoning is incorrect, absurd and fanciful.
- The CIC sponsorship forms fail to state the number of parties.
They do not specify any Minister or Ministry as a party.
- We have seen above that – in light of the common policies of the Crown – ss. 279.(2) of the CriminalCode renders to Sponsorship Agreement invalid,
void ab initio.
- D: False Statement:
- The plaintiff claims that Counsel representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada made and deposited a misleading statement
in the SCC Registry on or about June 18, 2012 in her printed Response pleadings. The deliberately false or misleading representations or declarations of Crown Counsel – Ms. XXXXX XXXXXX – before the Supreme Court of Canada, by commission or
omission, the plaintiff respectfully submits, should be determinative. Although the plaintiff is certain that Ms. XXXXXX is/has been a person with high personal integrity, honesty and goodwill, obviously she has been under a tremendous pressure of her superior(s)
that instructed or pressured her toward the last-ditch effort of the Crown, namely to make a false statement by affidavit or deposition. Subsection 131. (1) of the Criminal Code refers such false or misleading statements, whether
by affidavit, under oath, or by deposition. The plaintiff submits that Counsel committed such indictable offence under ss. 131. (1) by knowingly making such false statement.
- Pursuant to s. 132. of the Criminal Code, “Every
one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Pursuant to ss. 139. (2), “Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described
in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.” The plaintiff notes that, in general, the Courts consider a document signed by a
Crown Counsel as equivalent to an affidavit. (If Counsel’s seal is missing, such minor formal error does not make it invalid.)
- The Crown had the requisite mens rea for the crimes. Ms. XXXXX XXXXXXX is a government official who
“knowingly and willfully” falsified, concealed, or covered up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; and made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this government fraud case, for the judges of the
Supreme Court of Canada. Pursuant to the application of the paragraphs of the Criminal Code cited above, and using a conversion of equating one year of imprisonment (for a high-rank white collar Crown servant) with a fine of $50,000 the maximum figures
would be as follow: $700,000 with reference to 131. (1) and s. 132. of the Criminal Code, or, $500,000 regarding ss. 139. (2) of the same Code. The plaintiff respectfully suggests the average of the two amounts
as a fine of $600,000 for Counsel’s false statement, payable to the plaintiff(s).
- E: Material Misrepresentation Related to the Sponsorship Documents:
- In  of Deng
v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 63185 (CA IRB) the Court described the legal test for misrepresentation. It is a tripartite test that consists of the following factors: a. Direct or indirect misrepresentation or
withholding of material facts, b. Materiality to a relevant matter, c. An error or possible error in the administration of the law (we may add here: nationwide).
- The plaintiffs submit that the required three factors are present in the
case at bar. The CIC directly misrepresented and withheld crucial material facts in its CIC Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking forms. Those forms were material and extremely important to the relevant matter: they caused a catastrophic situation for the
plaintiff, though his previous sponsorship with Ms. Reyes. Anyone can see that the misrepresentations on the CIC forms resulted serious errors in the IRPA’s administration in (and since) 2007. One of them was the unlawful refusal of Ms. Zhong’s
visa application that prevented the plaintiffs from their family’s reunification.
- The Crown’s misrepresentation in the CIC forms and policies “induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act” [IRPA]
as expressed in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Yang, 2007 CanLII 52935 (CA IRB), being part of the statutory test.
- The CIC directly and indirectly (i.e., by several tortuous steps on different dates) misrepresented
and purposefully withheld material facts relevant to the sponsorship agreements, the fulfillments of the sponsor’s promises, and the existing legal framework nationwide. Those misrepresentations were crucial and had materiality to the signing of the
sponsorship agreements and undertakings by the sponsors. As a result of the misrepresentations and omissions by the CIC, errors occurred Canada-wide in the administration of the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).
issue is not only whether the Crown and its servants or agents made the misrepresentations deliberately, inadvertently, recklessly or with wilful blindness, but whether the misrepresentation was “material” to the negative effect on the re-victimized
sponsors and on the lawful administration of the IRPA in Canada. The ministers, in bad faith, obliged all of their administrators to handle the sponsorship agreements and undertakings as 100% binding contracts while those were neither valid nor contracts.
- The Crown – primarily four ministers* of the CIC, the Commissioner(s) of the CRA, and three ministers of Justice since 2006 – knowingly (or innocently misinterpreted subsections 132. (4) (a), (b), and (c) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations in the policy entitled IP 2 [Processing Applications to Sponsor Members of the Family Class]. The latter policy repeatedly claims that the sponsors signed binding contracts with the other parties. Every
lawyer knows that an agreement or a declaration is not identical with a contract. The Crown made the same error twice in the Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking forms, claiming near the end of the text that the sponsorship agreement was a contract. (*Note:
the three ministers of the CIC mentioned above were: Mr. Monte Solberg, Ms. Diane Finley, Mr. Jason Kenney, and Mr. Chris Alexander. The federal ministers of justice during material times were Mr. Vic Toews, Mr. Rob Nicholson, and Mr. Peter Mackay.)
is clear and obvious from the two CIC sponsorship undertaking forms that the CIC compiled them dishonestly. However, in January 1999 or before, the CIC was still operating under the rule of the Liberal Party’s government and that Party had carefully
observed the laws of Canada in this field. They could not foresee that seven years later a Conservative government may utilize their controversial CIC forms for a huge fraudulent money-extortion scheme that would cover the whole country. Thus, the plaintiff
respectfully submits, the misinterpretation began before 1999 but the Crown’s massive fraudulent scheme developed in 2006, under the Conservative regime.
- There is no requirement in the IRPA, or, in its subsection 126.
that the misrepresentation be intentional, deliberate or negligent. Regardless of these required components, ss. 128. (a) of the IRPA allows a maximum fine of $100,000 plus imprisonment for a term of five years. These two, after conversion,
may be assessed as $100,000 + $250,000. This yields a total of $350,000 for a major misinterpretation even if the party’s officials causing it were innocent and acted in good faith but negligently.
- As the first step of the fraud, the CIC obliged the plaintiff to sign vague, outdated, legally controversial, unconstitutional and unlawful CIC forms when he sponsored Ms. Reyes in January 1999. From the
legal point of view, at least for the narrow class of the plaintiff, the Sponsorship Agreement is a nullity, only a moral guideline between spouses or relatives.
- In para.  of R. v. Pilarinos, 2002 BCSC 452 (CanLII), the Court cited, “Protecting
the integrity of government is crucial to the proper functioning of a democratic system.” It continues in para. : “[T]he doctrine of vagueness does not require a precise definition to be attributed to the offence. It is enough if the provision,
as interpreted, has shape where conduct might be illegal in contrast to an area where it is not. In Nova Scotia Pharmaceuticals, supra, the Court said, at p. 311: Language is not the exact tool that some may think it is. It cannot be argued
that an enactment can and must provide enough guidance to predict the legal consequences of any given course of conduct in advance. All it can do is enunciate some boundaries, which create an area of risk.
- The definition of fraud, in the context of
a representation, is that the false representation was made knowingly, without an honest belief in its truth, or recklessly or carelessly whether it be true or false: Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 (H.L.). The Crown is liable for fraud against
the plaintiffs. The civil test for fraud is a high probability but at the hearing that higher standard of proof would be readily met.
- The crux of the matters is the public officers’ knowledge or ignorance of the fraudulent scheme created by
the honourable tortfeasors.
- The test for fraud has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Olan, 1978 CanLII 9 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 1175 at 1182: Where it is alleged that a corporation has been defrauded by its directors deception
is not an essential element of the offence. (In the case at bar, the Crown is not a corporation.) The honourable tortfeasor ministers and their administrators involved, in co-operation or conspiracy, defrauded the sponsors and the whole nation – Canada
– by disobeying about thirty laws of the country.
- While the courts have been loath to attempt an exhaustive definition of “defraud” one can say that two elements are essential, “dishonesty” and “deprivation.”
The plaintiff respectfully submits that both the dishonesty of the Crown’s public servants (including the ministers) and the deprivation of the plaintiffs (Z.A. Simon and Ms. Zhong) are present in the case at bar. The fraudulent acts and omissions have
been committed by the public servants and officials of the CIC (Ministry of Immigration and Citizenship Canada), the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency), the RSBC (Revenue Services of British Columbia), and Justice Canada. The location of the fraudulent acts and omissions
was mainly Ottawa and Victoria, although many of the forms, statements and policies – like the Sponsorship Agreement, Undertaking, IP 2, or MoU (Memorandum of Understanding between the CIC and the CRA) – show no city for their
- The plaintiff claims that his alleged debt towards the Crown arose out of a fraud committed by several cabinet ministers of the Crown. Those honourable tortfeasors included the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Commissioner
of Revenue or/and the minister responsible for the lawful operation of the CRA, probably the Minister of National Revenue or Minister of Finance. The Minister of Justice – then apparently Mr. Vic Toews – participated in the fraudulent tort scheme
by wilful blindness. He failed to disapprove the scheme and the unlawful policies (IP 2 and MoU) of the CIC and the CRA. Also, it was the intentional omission of the Minister(s) of Justice not to maintain a special registry book or folder
in the registries of the Federal Court in which the administrators could keep track of the judgments related to sponsorship debts in the country. Thus, he simply ignored the wording, “The certificate is to be filed and registered in the Federal Court”
pursuant to 146. (2) of the IRPA. This is a conspiracy by wilful blindness on behalf of the three above-mentioned ministers that, purposefully and in bad faith, through such omissions for eight years, between 2006 and 2014.
Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Commissioner of Revenue signed and published a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), primarily for the use of the administrators of the CRA and the CIC. It contained statements that
were not harmonious with the legislation. For example, it stated: “If the sponsored family member(s) receives social assistance benefits during the sponsorship validity period, the sponsor is considered to be in default and a debt arises…”
and “subsection 145(2) of IRPA stipulates that an amount that a sponsor is required to pay under the terms of an undertaking is payable on demand to Her Majesty…” These two statements contradict ss. 118. (2) of the old Immigration
Act, 1976, subsections146. (1) and (2) of the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), and the text of the Sponsorship Agreement. All of the latter three require the involvement of a Court of competent jurisdiction,
or, the issuance of a certificate by the Minister that shall be registered at the Federal Court before a default or debt claim becomes real (certified) debt. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the latter interpretation in Canada (Attorney General) v.
Mavi, 2011 SCC 30,  2 SCR 504. That Order mentions about six times the certification of a debt at the Court as a prerequisite for the Crown (before garnishment).
- The Canada (A.G.) v. Mavi case, supra, is the highest –
or only – authority regarding failed sponsorship situations. In it, eight persons opposed the Crown. None of the eight sponsors claimed that they had not been notified by the Crown, or, that the ministerial certificate had not been filed, or that limitation
law had extinguished their debts. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted, the cases of those eight persons were very different from the case of Zoltan A. Simon that is in a category of its own.
- In order to give more support for the streamlining efforts
of the federal ministers, the CIC published another policy in 2006, entitled IP 2 – Processing Applications to Sponsor Members of the Family Class [http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip02-eng.pdf]. It was aimed towards the employees
of the CIC and the CRA and it contains several counts of false or fraudulent statements. For example, under “Undertaking”, it is stated: “The undertaking is a binding contract between sponsors… and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Or, “If the sponsor dies, CIC or the provinces will not seek compensation from the sponsor’s estate…” This wording means that CIC or the provinces are entitled to garnishee any sponsor without the involvement of any Court, even after
decades of silence, regardless the limitation laws of Canada or a province. The policy named IP 2 shows the word “contract” five times: under paragraphs 5.18, 6.9, 12, and 16 (twice). These five instances constitute five counts of fraud
because there was no “contract” in the Sponsorship Agreement or in the Undertaking forms, or, under ss. 132. (4) (a), (b) and (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
- The plaintiff alleges that the directors of the CRA involved and the Commissioner of Revenue did not act honestly and in good faith, with a view to the best interests of the Agency. They made the CRA appear as a fraudster. Also, the
above mentioned officials contravened ss. 42. (1) (a) and (b) of the Canada Revenue Agency Act, S.C. 1999, c. 17. They and failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, diligence and skill towards the public.
They disregarded the relevant paragraphs of the above mentioned legislation – ss. 118. (2) of the old Immigration Act, subsections146. (1) and (2) of the IRPA – and common law determined by the
SCC regarding the prerequisites of garnishment, namely the ministerial certificate and its filing with the Federal Court. They acted with the ulterior motive and collateral purpose of misleading every administrator of the RCA and the CIC. They correctly anticipated
that an average administrator was aware of the difference between contracts and agreements, knowing that debts based on contracts did not need the involvement of a Court before garnishment while the Court had to be involved and an order needed to be issued
in case of agreements. For comparison, subsections 23. (1), 66. (2), 66. (2.01), 66. (2.2), 66. (2.3) and 66. (2.6) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-8 are using practically the same wording that the subsections of the IRPA andthe Immigration Act cited above in this paragraph, also the sponsorship agreement forms. While the CRA’s administrators obey these paragraphs of
the Canada Pension Plan, they knowingly violate the said subsections related to alleged sponsorship debts of similar nature in identical legal framework.
- Further, the CRA has been, or should have been, aware of the circumstance that the alleged
debt of the plaintiff had not been registered with the Credit Bureau. (In the spring of 2008, the plaintiff applied for a Canadian VISA card and soon it was approved. He used it till the date of his personal bankruptcy in March 2014.) The managers of the CRA
acted by wilful blindness: a fax inquiry to the Credit Bureau would have indicated them that the plaintiff did not have a valid or registered debt in June 2008 and in June 2009.
- The Crown relies on a single paragraph such as ss. 145.(3)
of the IRPA, containing the conditional word “may”, extrapolating it ultra-liberally: “A debt claim or suspected debt may be recovered at any time, even after a silence of decades, without even notifying the sponsor.” The plaintiff
humbly submits that the correct meaning is, “A debt may be recovered at any time by legal means, such as registering it at the Federal Court, harmoniously with other legislation that includes limitation laws.”
- Could such single paragraph,
extrapolated beyond recognition, logic and imagination, vitiate the Charter? Let alone (sub)sections 6. (2), 27., 32. (2) and 42. (2) of the Garnishment, Attachment and
Pension Diversion Act, ss. 14 (1) of the [now obsolete] Debt Collection Act; sections 32., 45., and 50. of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act;
with rules 8. and 9. of the Family Support Orders and Agreements Garnishment Regulations. If Parliament has created s. 50. of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act,
and subsections 42. (1) (b) and 42. (2) of the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act for routine adjustment situations in overpayment cases, would a similar adjustment be legally impossible here?
- The Defendant Crown(s) have ignored and contravened ss. 449. (1)(b) and (2) of the Federal Courts Rules: the word is “and” – instead of “or” – between ss. 449. (1) (a) and (b).
The plaintiff should have received a summons to attend a hearing at a Court but he has never been served.
- About 90% of the CIC Sponsorship Agreement form dealt with the Court’s involvement and the mutual responsibility of the parties –
but in reality that 90% did not exist or it was impracticable: there was no specified “Court of competent jurisdiction” that would be keen or willing to hear those issues. It was not obvious that a federal CIC form dealing with the federal matter
of immigration should refer to provincial courts only, regarding the severability clause, etc. The plaintiff trusted the defendant 100% and relied on a “sine qua non” sentence on the CIC form that echoed section 118. (2)
of the Immigration Act: the recovery of the payments may take place “in any court of competent jurisdiction.” [Being persecuted through a Court or without a Court are two very different notions.]
- During the hearing of the Simon
v. Canada, 2012 FCA 49 (CanLII) case, on or about February 13, 2012, the instant plaintiff asked the judges of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding a hypothetical situation as follows: He would write a letter to the CRA claiming that he sold a Rolls-Royce
car for the Prime Minister, say, for the price of $50,000 twenty years ago. In the letter, he would allege that the P.M. had failed to pay him, so he would request the CRA to garnishee the pay cheques of the P.M. Would the CRA start the P.M.’s garnishment
without any evidence? One of the three judges answered in the courtroom: Of course, not, Mr. Simon, because you are only an individual, not a province. (This is not a letter-by-letter citation.)
- The plaintiff respectfully submits that there is no
such distinction in the laws of Canada between a person and the province. One can compile a vertical list of garnishers as follows: The Office of the Prime Minister, The Minister for Sports of the Province of Prince Edward Island, BC Hydro, WAL-MART, Guildford
Town Centre (Surrey), and Strawberry Bakery (Vancouver). The administrators of the CRA have no right to draw an arbitrary line between any two of these entities stating that above that line the entity or authority is allowed to garnishee any person while the
ones below that line cannot garnishee anyone. Pursuant to Canada’s laws, the size or the power of the legal person is not determinative. The “line” to be drawn is determined by the fact regarding the debt’s registration. If a “debt”
has not been certified, registered and filed with a Court, eventually the Federal Court, it is not a debt but only an empty debt claim that is not garnishable.
- The plaintiff argues that the maximum penalty should apply in this case at bar where several
consecutive ministers of the CIC repeatedly committed the same crime in bad faith for eight years, without any indication of respect towards the IRPA and the Criminal Code, and the acts and regulations prescribing the proper lawful ways in
garnishment procedures. Since there is no specific punishment in the Criminal Code regarding fraudulent misinterpretation, please refer to such offence under “fraud” below.
- G: Fraud or
- The Crown (Canada), by the introduction of controversial and unlawful policies or guidelines called IP 2 (2006) and MoU (2006) on the CIC web site, created a false impression for the provinces that
each provincial authority had received unlimited power through ”blank cheques” from the sponsors and the federal government. Such IP 2 and MoU make every provincial public servant think that the Charter rights now would
be suspended and Canadians may be punished or persecuted without any involvement of the Courts, without any Court order. If such interpretation were correct it would render the said two policies unconstitutional.
- The test for fraud is described on
Page 1182 in R. v. Olan et al.,  2 SCR 1175: “The defendants were convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeal, in upholding the convictions, had this to say, at p. 1250: To cheat and defraud is to act with deliberate dishonesty to the
prejudice of another person’s proprietary right. In the context of this case the alleged conspiracy to cheat and defraud is an agreement by a director of a company and others dishonestly to take a risk with the assets of the company by using them in
a manner which was known to be not in the best interests of the company and to be prejudicial to the minority shareholders. The general direction as to fraud in the summing-up commences by stating that to amount to fraud the conduct must be deliberately dishonest.”
- The plaintiffs respectfully submit that in the case at bar the federal and provincial Crown(s) were cheating and defrauding deliberately dishonestly to the prejudice of their and the re-victimized sponsors’ proprietary rights through a sophisticated
tort system and conspiracy and extortion, by preventing the plaintiffs to defend themselves before a Court of competent jurisdiction before garnishment, and creating insurmountable obstacles for the unification of their family.
- In R. v. Théroux,
 2 SCR 5, the Court outlined the test for fraud, based on the Criminal Code: “380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this
Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject matter of the offence is a testamentary
instrument or where the value of the subject matter of the offence exceeds one thousand dollars… This brings me to the question of whether the test for mens rea is subjective or objective… In applying the subjective test, the court looks
to the accused’s intention and the facts as the accused believed them to be: G. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1983), at pp. 727-28. … The Actus Reus of Fraud Since the mens rea of an offence
is related to its actus reus, it is helpful to begin the analysis by considering the actus reus of the offence of fraud. Speaking of the actus reus of this offence, Dickson J. (as he then was) set out the following principles
in Olan: (i) the offence has two elements: dishonest act and deprivation; (ii) the dishonest act is established by proof of deceit, falsehood or “other fraudulent means”; (iii) the element
of deprivation is established by proof of detriment, prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the victim, caused by the dishonest act.
- These doctrinal observations suggest that the actus reus of the offence of fraud
will be established by proof of: 1. the prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, a falsehood or some other fraudulent means; and 2. deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests
- Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of: 1. subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and 2. subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation
of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim’s pecuniary interests are put at risk). Where the conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended the
prohibited consequence or was reckless as to whether it would occur.” [Here ends the citation from R. v. Théroux.]
- Pursuant to ss. 380. (1) (a) of the Criminal Code as of today, Every
one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, (a) is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars.
plaintiff is unaware regarding the date when the amount in the text of ss. 380. (1) (a) of the Criminal Code changed from one thousand dollars to five thousand dollars. The plaintiff respectfully submits that all of these required
conditions existed in the case at bar. The four federal ministers – the honourable tortfeasors – and the two provincial ministers involved had been aware of the prohibited acts or omissions of each other and their public servants. They knew that
a deprivation of the plaintiffs and that of the re-victimized sponsors would occur. They were reckless as to whether or at what degree the prohibited consequence or the damages to the sponsors would occur. They knew that they had been guilty because they covered
up their torts for seven year, by more and more cruel and illegal means.
- Pursuant to ss. 362. (1) (a) of the Criminal Code, Every one commits an offence who (a) by a false pretence, whether directly
or through the medium of a contract obtained by a false pretence, obtains anything in respect of which the offence of theft may be committed or causes it to be delivered to another person. Under ss. 362. (2) (b), the Criminal
Code prescribes an imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, where the value of what is obtained does not exceed five thousand dollars. The actual value taken was under $4,000. Therefore, the plaintiffs respectfully submit that such term would
reasonable correspond to an amount of $100,000 that is claimed from the Crown defendants, payable severally or solidarily.
- On the other hand, the CIC and the CRA have “created” a debt or debt claim of over $38,000 for the plaintiff, by
fraud. Thus, the situation is associated with 14 years of imprisonment that may be equated with a penalty of $700,000 payable to the plaintiff.
- H: The contra proferentem rule – Release from liability:
- In Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin,  3 SCR 415, the Court stated: [Para.] (2) Release from liability Per
La Forest, Sopinka, Cory and Major JJ.: It has long been clear that a guarantor will be released from liability on the guarantee in circumstances where the creditor and the principal debtor agree to a material alteration of the terms of the contract of debt
without the consent of the guarantor. … If there is any ambiguity in the terms used in the guarantee, the words of the documents should be construed against the party which drew it, by applying the contra proferentem rule. … [Para.]
9: G. H. L. Fridman, in his text The Law of Contract in Canada (3rd ed. 1994), at pp. 470-71, puts the position in this way: The contra proferentem rule is of great importance, especially where the clause being construed creates an exemption,
exclusion or limitation of liability. … Where the contract is ambiguous, the application of the contra proferentem rule ensures that the meaning least favourable to the author of the document prevails. Professor McGuinness,
in his work The Law of Guarantee, supra, at pp. 612-13, explains the application of the rule as follows: … the contra proferentum rule of construction (under which the provisions of an agreement that were inserted by a party
for his own protection are subjected to a strict interpretation) provides one method through which the courts can restrict the scope of extremely broad provisions which purport to eliminate the rights of the surety. … Where the guarantee was drafted
by the creditor, and there is any ambiguity or imprecision in the terms of a provision which purports to limit the rights of a surety, it is only fair that the ambiguity be resolved against the party who prepared the document. If the creditor wishes to take
away a right belonging to the surety, he should use clear language in the document.
- The instant plaintiff submits that the “creditor” (the Crown) and the principal debtor (Ms. Reyes) agreed to a material alteration of the terms of the
contract of debt without the consent of the sponsor and guarantor, Zoltan A. Simon. The Crown (BC) sent Ms. Reyes to several courses to study English language, for about four years. Thus, the Crown disabled her to be self-supporting for that period. The meaning
least favourable to the author of the document prevails: namely (a) that the sponsor and the sponsored person were equally responsible for the alleged “debt” since both signed the sponsorship agreement regarding their obligations. It the Crown
forgives the “debt” of Ms. Reyes, it means that the “debt” of Zoltan A. Simon has been forgiven as well. Both Canada and BC has forgiven the alleged debt of Ms. Reyes – who received the actual monies from the Crown – so
they must forgive the guarantor’s alleged debt as well. However, following the “contra proferentem” rule, the proper solution is to consider the plaintiff’s Sponsorship Agreement a nullity from the very beginning. There was
no “meeting of the minds.”
- The laws of Hammurabi, king of Babylonia (r. 1848-1805 BC), recorded that a man is not responsible for the debts created by his wife. This principle has been accepted universally and it is valid in our days world-wide.
If the CIC or the CRA wishes to challenge such massively established international common law, they must produce some good legal argument to this Honourable Court.
- I: Unconscionability, lack of valid agreement: it is void ab initio
- Often the Crown claims that it has a valid contract with each sponsor. Sometimes the Crown is uncertain if it has any contract with them. It
seems that the Crown has an on-and-off contract with every sponsor. When the Crown has rights under such contracts, it has those contracts. When the Crown would have some obligations under such alleged contract, the Crown does not have any contract. It is
a fraudulent game of “hide and seek.” The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, under the subtitle(s) SPONSORSHIP and Sponsorship agreements, specify several requirements as follow.
- Pursuant to ss.
152. (1) of the IRP Regulations, “The Minister may enter into a sponsorship agreement with a sponsor…” The Minister mentioned here has not entered into a sponsorship (or any) agreement with the sponsor, now the instant
plaintiff. Even if these rules would be valid in our case and the Minister was a party to the Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking, he should have signed those documents – what he failed to do. But if – despite his failure or omission related
to subsection 153. (2) – he is still a party to those two documents, he and the provincial minister (and the sponsored person, Ms. Reyes) as “parties to the undertaking are jointly and severally or solidarily liable” for
the “damages” done for BC. Please refer to ss. 153. (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. However, the CIC sponsorship undertaking documents did not specify that the sponsor and the sponsored person
were “jointly and severally or solidarily liable” for any damage. Such silence was an incurable error in light of the policies.
- As we have seen, subsections 132.(4) (a), (b) and (c ) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations clearly express that the Minister of the CIC (the Crown Defendant) has no contract with the sponsors in a regular situation in family class sponsorship. Therefore, the recurring statements in the IP 2 policy claiming a
binding contract between the parties are fraudulent. Fraud is a punishable offence.
- Also, the CIC Sponsorship Agreement form shows (at least) two lines for the signatures of the parties. One line is for the sponsor – let alone the co-sponsor
– and a separate line is for the sponsored person. The same agreement – almost explicitly – states that the sponsor has an absolute obligation since he or she is financially responsible for 100% of the “damages.” This major controversy
reveals a fraudulent intent of the CIC: if the sponsors’ absolute obligation is true and serious, showing a line for the signature of the sponsored person is fraudulent because that party has always zero responsibility. A bilateral agreement is different
from a unilateral one – the latter category does not even exist.
- The plaintiffs respectfully submit that Crown servants of the four federal ministries and four BC ministries (or agencies) involved have been parties to most of the crimes or offences
committed against them. Pursuant to ss. 21. (1) (a), (b), and (c ) , also 21. (2) of the Criminal Code, they are all punishable by law for their participation …. Pursuant to ss. 22. (1) of
the Criminal Code, the ministers of these ministries or government authorities have been parties to those offences and are punishable for counselling such offences. All these eight Crown authorities had and still have the common intention of obtaining
profit or financial gain by the unlawful exploitation of the re-victimized sponsors that had been unaware of the problems. The Crown used a tortuous way that prevented the notification of some sponsors and the involvement of any Court during or before the
garnishing procedure against those sponsors, including the plaintiff at bar.
- Even if an Honourable Court would conclude that the ministers and their agents and administrators were only negligent, since they markedly departed from the standard of care
required, the fact remains that their superiors – the ministers – involved were faulty and malicious, not only negligent. A perpetual system of governmental cover-ups for more than seven years cannot be called mere negligence. They did not participate
in those cover-ups negligently. Rather, their participation was a state of art, a very carefully designed system of torts and fraud. But a “Swiss watch” of torts is still a tort. The more sophisticated is the least foolproof.
- The federal
forms (IP 2 and Sponsorship Agreement with Understanding) assume that only the Canadian sponsors could be guilty wrongdoers in 100% of the default cases, while every foreigner (and Canadian administrator) is obviously always innocent who never make
mistakes, so they are not accountable. Such open expression of prejudice and discrimination based on nationality (and profession) would sufficiently deem those CIC forms illegal and invalid for him. In general, the public servants did not act bona fide,
but with oppressive purpose.
- Accordingly, if each sponsor has 100% financial responsibility and the Crown’s administrators have 0% – that is the Crown is not accountable – it can result basic injustice. Say, the administrators of
the social benefits mixed up two single mothers with the same surname. One of them had one dependent child and the other four. The first one, who was a sponsored immigrant that separated from the sponsor, received too much money for several years. (The Crown’s
administrators overpaid this person that, by mistake, received the benefits calculated for four dependent children.) A few decades later the Crown discovered the error and started to garnishee the innocent sponsor.
- In January 1999, the plaintiff had
no idea that he was signing a contract and he was taking 100% responsibility for the errors of the Crown’s administrators. He would not have signed a Sponsorship Agreement showing that condition explicitly. Such condition had been hidden in the CIC form.
The Crown failed to reveal him an important material fact.
- The plaintiff submits that he had no other choice but to sign the controversial Sponsorship Agreement in 1999 for Ms. Reyes unconsciously.
- The concepts of unequal bargaining power
and undue influence are also often linked to discussions of the fiduciary principle. Claims based on these causes of action, it is true, will often arise in the context of a professional relationship side by side with claims related to duty of care and fiduciary
duty; see Horace Krever and Marion Randall Lewis, “Fiduciary Obligations and the Professions” in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada, 1990, Fiduciary Duties, at pp. 291-93. Indeed, all three equitable doctrines are designed
to protect vulnerable parties in transactions with others. However, whereas undue influence focuses on the sufficiency of consent and unconscionability looks at the reasonableness of a given transaction, the fiduciary principle monitors the abuse of a loyalty
reposed; see G. H. L. Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada (2nd ed. 1986), at pp. 301-11. Thus, while the existence of a fiduciary relationship will often give rise to an opportunity for the fiduciary to gain an advantage through undue influence,
it is possible for a fiduciary to gain an advantage for him- or herself without having to resort to coercion; see Hospital Products, supra; and Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley, 1973
CanLII 23 (SCC),  S.C.R. 592. Similarly, while the doctrine of unconscionability is triggered by abuse of a pre-existing inequality in bargaining power between the parties, such an inequality is no more a necessary element in a fiduciary relationship
than factors such as trust and loyalty are necessary conditions for a claim of unconscionability.
- In Bilson v. Kokotow, the Court stated that strangers to a contract cannot claim for damages. There are many similar common law cases. Since
the Crown was not a signatory to any contract with the sponsors, it has no right to punish them, except for fraud.
- The plaintiff submits that the Crown misinterprets the word “debt” in the IRPA in two steps. First of all, it is
a fraud to insert words into the IRPA’s text. The Crown interprets ss. 145. (3), as “A debt or an uncertified debt claim may be recovered at any time.” Secondly, the Crown misinterprets the vague moral obligations
of two parties as if it would be a certain amount agreed upon at the moment of signing the sponsorship agreements as a unilateral obligation of each sponsor.
- In Coast Capital Savings Credit Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011
BCCA 20 (CanLII), at paragraph , the Court noted: “… Rather, I would be content to adopt the definition of “debt” that appears in numerous Canadian and English cases, namely: A debt is defined to be a sum of money which is certainly,
and at all events, payable without regard to the fact whether it be payable now or at a future time.”
- In the case at bar, there was no sign or indication before 2007 regarding any defined sum of money involved.
- The sponsorship agreement
has a serious lack of definition of the crucial words “self-supporting,” “absolute,” “unconditional,” or “basic necessities.” As a result of these failures, among others mentioned in these pleadings, the
agreement is void due to vagueness. Further, the meaning of the word “recover” is – in the overwhelming majority of common law cases – is always associated with an action taken in a Court. Let alone that if the sponsor s have never
seen or received any money from the Crown, and the moneys paid to the sponsored persons have been kept in secret from the sponsors (perhaps for decades), the word “recover” – and therefore ss. 145. (3) of the IRPA
– are not applicable.
- Theconcept of “needs” in the context of non-compensatory spousal support goes beyond basic necessities of life and varies according to the circumstances of the parties. As stated by Finch J.A. (as he then was)
in Myers v. Myers 1995 CanLII 2274 (BC CA), (1995), 17 R.F.L. (4th) 298, 65 B.C.A.C. 226, at para. 10: “Need” or “needs” are not
absolute quantities. They may vary according to the circumstances of the parties and the family unit as a whole. “Need” does not end when the spouse seeking support achieves a subsistence level of income or any level of income above subsistence.
“Needs” is a flexible concept and is one of several considerations which a trial judge must take into account in deciding whether any order for spousal support is warranted.
- The plaintiff respectfully submits that the standards of the
Salvation Army or an average homeless shelter are applicable: they provide for the “essential needs” for any new immigrant if those standards must be acceptable for “old Canadians.” The legislation does not provide a Cadillac where
a Ford would do, like sending a person for school or university needlessly for four or ten years.
- J: Frustrated sponsorship agreement:
- In J. Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two), Bingham LJ set out five propositions which he regarded as the essence of the doctrine. The plaintiff submits that these key elements of the doctrine of frustration exist in the case
at bar. Therefore, the IRPA that came into force on June 28, 2002, effectively killed his sponsorship agreement with Ms. Reyes. (The interpretation of the IRPA by every public servant – and some of the courts – is that the obligations
of the sponsors are absolute while the sponsored persons have no obligations at law. In contrast, the sponsorship agreement is bilateral and requires an equal responsibility on the part of the sponsor and the sponsored person for the basic necessities
of the latter.)
- The several gradual but radical shifts in the legislation, policies and interpretation of the CIC sponsorship matters have caused the plaintiff’s sponsorship agreement of 1999 collapse. It became invalid at each step. In general,
please refer to Frustrated Contract Act, RSBC 1996, c 166: 1 (1)(a); 2; 3; and 5 (3).
- K: The Crown’s action is unlawful
beyond the limitation period:
- Since June 2008, the Minister of National Revenue and his administrators, also the managers of the RSBC, failed to apply section 32. of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act
that was harmonious with sections 3.(5) and 9 (1) of the Limitation Act of British Columbia. They ignored and contravened, in bad faith and knowingly about the irreparable damages caused for the plaintiff’s family. They disobeyed
the legally prescribed limitation period of 6 years that turned any claim for debt “statute-barred” if a self-help action had not occurred.
- The instant case at bar is almost identical to Markevich v. Canada, 2003 SCC 9, 
1 SCR 94. In it, an alleged tax debt in the amount of $770,583.42 was claimed by the Crown, including interest. In paragraph 44 of Markevich, supra, Canada acted as the agent of a province (BC), similarly to the instant case at bar. The Court
dismissed the Crown’s appeal. The alleged debt was cancelled since the Crown had no court action or garnishment within the 6-year limitation period, just like here. Several enactments, for example related to student loan debts, have similar limitation
periods. There was no legislation in 1999 and 2000 claiming that a sponsorship debt is above the limitation laws of Canada and its expiry date or garnishment procedure is much stricter than debts related to tax arrears, student loans, etc.
acts and regulations refer to a prescribed limitation period of six years. Not all of them because it is a clear and obvious rule, just like the rules to keep documents and receipts for at least six years. For example, pursuant to paragraph 258.
of the Immigration andRefugee Protection Regulations, “No seizure may be made under subsection 140(1) of the Act in respect of the fraudulent or improper obtaining or use of a thing more than six years after that obtaining or use.”
Similar limits are expressed in ss. 23.(4) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, ss. 16.1 (1) of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, ss. 18. (2) of the Canada Student Loans
Act, s. 113. of the Customs Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (2nd Supp), ss. 55.01 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4, ss. 39. (1) and (2) of the Federal Courts Act, or 46.1
(4) of the Employment Insurance Act.
- Another “untimely” factor may be mentioned here. Namely, the garnishing request [of the RSBC] was binding the CRA for 30 days only. The CRA violated that legislation. Pursuant to section 32.
of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, “A garnishee summons served on the Minister has effect only if it is served on the Minister in the first thirty days following the first day on which it could have been validly
served on the Minister.” These 30 days correspond exactly with the words in ss. 146. (1) (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Would this be mere coincidence?
- It was not compulsory but perhaps
optional – or rather unlawful – to start garnishing the plaintiff’s tax credit funds after a delay of eight years or so. Thus, the CRA’s excuse that it had been a kind of victim – a garnishee – under the pressure of British
Columbia by a lawful obligation to snatch the plaintiff’s monies seems like a b.s. – a baseless statement. Maybe the CRA concerned (?) that the Province of British Columbia may declare its separation from Canada if Zoltan A. Simon’s unlawful
garnishment would not take place.
- L: No contributory negligence on the plaintiffs’ behalf:
- The Crown and its ministers or public servants have not tried to mitigate the
alleged damages of British Columbia and the plaintiff since 2000. Counsel to the Crown in the IAD hearing of the plaintiff claimed that Z.A. Simon had not tried to mitigate the damages of the Province. One may pose a question here in a hypothetical case as
follows. A criminal kidnaps the two minor children of a judge and keeps demanding a ransom, complaining that it is his financial loss to feed the children for months. The judge, instead of mitigation, takes the criminal to court. What is wrong in such conduct?
Why should an innocent victim mitigate the losses of a criminal? (In the case at bar, the Crown acted like a professional criminal. Or, using the true wording, the Crown defendants, since 2006, acted as if they would be active participants of organized crime.)
- M: The claim for misfeasance in public office:
- Misfeasance in public office is an intentional tort. The tort is
meant to provide a measure of accountability for public officials who do not exercise their duties of office in good faith. To make out this tort, the instant plaintiffs are demonstrating the four elements as follow: (a)
The public officials deliberately engaged in unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions. Namely, the ministers responsible for the lawful operation of the CRA and the CIC knowingly issued unlawful policies (IP 2 and MuO) in 2006),
in order to mislead the public servants. They forced all of their employees to follow those rules while ignore the relevant legislation (the IRPA and its Regulations, the Interpretation Act, federal and provincial legislation related
to garnishment, the laws regarding limitation of acts, etc.); (b) The public officials, including the ministers mentioned above plus
the Minister of Justice, the minister responsible for Service Canada, and the Minister of Housing and Social Development, etc. (of BC) were aware since 2006 that the conduct was unlawful and was likely to injure the plaintiff and their class: the re-victimized
sponsors. They admitted in print that the said two policies, at least the MoU, may not be valid before a Court. They indicated in the IMM 1344 C (02-98) E or/and IMM 1344 B (02-98) E forms that a court may – and probably would – find certain
parts of the CIC sponsorship undertaking forms unlawful or unconstitutional and, therefore, severable from the agreements. [Please note that the severability clause seems to be missing from the modern versions of those forms.] The Minister of Justice knew
that the IRPA prescribed the operation of a filing system in the Federal Court in order to keep track of sponsorship debts. However, he ignored the law and allowed or encouraged his employees to do the same by skipping the involvement of any Court
in real practice. The plaintiff kept informing the top officials of Canada and BC about their unlawful policies. The leaders of Service Canada and its Minister knowingly intimidated the plaintiff by the false claim that his CPP pension benefits may be garnisheed
before the involvement of any court. This was a conspiracy between Ms. Sharon Shanks and Minister Diane Finley. In a similar case, the Court ordered the Crown to pay Mr. Longley $55,000 in damages although there was no coercion or intimidating element: Longley
v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 1999. In the instant case at bar the silence of the CRA was intimidating, with the aim of coercion in order to get the monies of the concerned plaintiff by misquoting the laws. The plaintiffs submit that an item
of $55,000 would apply in this case as shown in the table above. The officials of the four ministries involved acted dishonestly, in bad faith. As Iacobucci J. said in Odhavji, public officials who deliberately engage in conduct that they know
to be inconsistent with the obligations of their office risk liability for the tort; (c) The public officials’ tortious
conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Namely, they conduct influenced the Immigration Officer in Hong Kong in the refusal to grant temporary resident visa to Ms. Zhong in April 2007. The honourable tortfeasors remained adamant in maintaining
their systems of torts nationwide. These key factors resulted in the forced separation of Zoltan A. Simon from his family members: Ms. Zhong and Mr. Ye for more than seven years. This is a Charter violation as well: a cruel and unusual treatment of
innocent and law-obedient human beings, by contravention of section 12. of the Charter.
- The injuries suffered by the plaintiff are compensable in tort law because torts, frauds, deceit, misinterpretation, offences relating
to public officers, breach of duty of care, breach of trust, misfeasance, conversion of chattels, intimidation, undue interference, conspiracy, money extortion schemes, laundering of proceeds of crime, terrorist activity and perjury or false statements are
all crimes or indictable offences punishable by law. One can find detailed description of these torts and their punishments in the Criminal Code.
- As Justice Iacobucci summarized: The tort of misfeasance in a public office is an intentional
tort whose distinguishing elements are twofold: (i) deliberate unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions; and (ii) awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff.
- In general, see Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse,
2003 SCC 69 (CanLII), 3 S.C.R. 263 at para. 32, alsoSt. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City), 2010 ONCA 280 (CanLII) that are applicable. The plaintiff submits
that each element of the tort of misfeasance in a public office exists here, as set out at paragraph 23 in Odhavji Estate, supra.
- In the case at bar, this tort of misfeasance concerns the unlawful conduct or omission by a public
official who knows his or her actions are unlawful and likely to harm a specific person or group of people, here the re-victimized sponsors. It contemplates an element of bad faith which has been established here by the unexplained and excessive delay
of over seven years not providing the plaintiff a lawful explanation for the forced separation of his wife from him, let alone the extended cover-ups and the willful blindness of the top officials or ministers of the CRA, the CIC, the Ministry of Justice –
both of Canada and BC – and the two or three other BC ministries involved, instead of admitting their errors and omissions.
- Our case at bar is comparable well to Young v. Bella, 2006 SCC 3,  1 S.C.R. In that case, two ignorant
university professors acted out of suspicion and lack of wisdom. They assumed that they were protecting society from an abusive young predator. Regardless their explicit lack of intention to hurt Ms. Young, the jury rewarded an amount of $839,400.00 in damages
- The instant plaintiffs respectfully submit that in the case at bar three persons of a family have been damaged intentionally for over seven years, by two governments that had almost endless financial resources. In the case of Young,
supra, the damage lasted for two years (during which Ms. Young was unaware of the defamation actions against her). The tort was quite unintentional. Further, the financial means of two professors and/or a university were limited. Finally, Ms. Young
was a young student and she was free to clarify her defamation, or, to start a different career. Zoltan A. Simon is 65 years old while Ms. Zhong is 51. They have irreversibly lost seven years of living together or cohabit, the ability to gender and raise a
child together, and still being uncertain of their future: in which country can they unify their family, etc. The plaintiff may not survive in China. Thus, comparing the two cases, three times $839,400.00 ($2,818,200) would be a reasonable amount in punitive
damages, due to the Crown’s torts connected with misfeasance in a public office.
- N:Offences relating to Public Officer(s):
- An unnamed officer or employee of the Government of Canada – perhaps Officer RS in the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga – knowingly made or issued a false statement and sent it to A. Chau, Designated Immigration Officer of the Consulate
General of Canada in Hong Kong, falsely claiming that the plaintiff, Zoltan Andrew Simon, had a sponsorship debt in March or April 2007. That unnamed officer, employee of the Government of Canada, wilfully obstructed a public visa officer in the execution
of his duty, since he or she knowingly made or issued a false document or statement to the immigration officer. Therefore, the unnamed public servant or employee of the Crown contravened subsection 129. (1) (a) and (d) of
the IRPA, also ss. 129. (a), (d) of the Criminal Code, and committed an offence. He or she directly or indirectly misrepresented or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter – in this case
the application for Ms. Zhong for permanent residence, sponsored by Zoltan A. Simon – that induced an error in the administration of the IRPA, resulting in the unlawful refusal of Ms. Zhong’s visa by the said Immigration Officer. The unnamed
Crown officer above may have seen the declaration of the “BC creditor” as a single page received by fax. That page only stated that it was confirming the MOU – that had no legal power before any Court – and remained silent of the fact
that it failed to conform the IRPA. Both the sender and the receiver seems guilty in this tort that has resulted in the misleading of the Immigration Officer in Hong Kong.
- As we have seen, there is no requirement in the IRPA, or,
in its subsection 126. that the misrepresentation be intentional, deliberate or negligent. The unnamed officer knew or should have known that no ministerial debt certificate existed in the Federal Court against Z.A. Simon in or about April
2007. It was negligence on the Immigration Officer’s behalf not to investigate the status of the debt claim, and establish if the debt claim had been connected with a ministerial certificate filed in the Federal Court, or it had not.
- In case
if the unnamed servant of the Crown did not act knowingly, then his or her superior(s) – ultimately the Minister of CIC – acted knowingly or/and by willful blindness, by knowingly preventing the Crown’s administrators to learn about the correct
status or debt of any sponsor in the Federal Court’s files. The Minister of the CIC knowingly isolated the unnamed public servant – and the Immigration Officer – from the true material facts on file in the Federal Court. If the Federal Court
did not have such file in 2007 at all, the Minister of the CIC and the Minister of Justice are responsible for knowingly creating or accepting such unlawful situation in Canada that resulted in the regular and systematic violation of the IRPA’s
relevant paragraphs and the distortion of the immigration system.
- Finally, the plaintiff maintained frequent correspondence with the highest officers and authorities (in the CIC, IRB, IAD, CRA, Federal Court, Consulate General of Canada in Hong Kong,
etc.) and kept informing them about the numerous illegal elements in the administration of the IRPA. It is clear and obvious that they all acted knowingly since none of them instructed their administrators to take a second look at the errors or omissions.
No one apologized by a letter stating, say, “Unfortunately our administrators made a mistake in Mr. Simon’s case. It was only a single occurrence and an exceptional misunderstanding.” The late Mr. Brian P. Goodman and Mrs. Shari Stein were
among the key persons (in the IRB) whom the plaintiff kept informing repeatedly about the CIC’s and CRA’s unlawful practices. Apparently, they did not have the power to influence their superiors or convince them to improve the situation.
plaintiff respectfully submits that, pursuant to ss. 129. (d) of the Criminal Code, the proper punishment for the first element of tort in this case would be an imprisonment for a term of two years. Such term could reasonably
be converted to a penalty of $100,000 for the damages of Ms. Zhong and Mr. Simon. The second element of this is the false statement or deposition of a document issued for the visa officer. This element of the tort is punishable by imprisonment for a term of
fourteen years or less that may be converted the $700,000. The total of the two penalties would amount to $800,000 payable severally or solidarily by the Crown defendants for the plaintiffs for their damages.
- O: Claim in tort for breach of duty of care:
- The controversial and unlawful CIC forms constitute a marked departure from the standard care. The plaintiffs claim various breaches of duty of care toward and interference with
the Crown's obligations to the sponsors, at least to the extent that the CIC sponsorship agreement and undertaking forms should have been free of torts such as fraud, misinterpretation, failure to reveal important material facts, violations of several Charter
rights (such as discrimination between Canadian sponsors, sponsored aliens, and public servants of the Crown as three distinct groups of the society). Such violations of the sponsors’ Charter rights are not justified by section 1
of the Charter.
- The common law cases of Just v. British columbia,  2 SCR 1228 or Stoney Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), 1997 CanLII 5022 (FC) dealt with issues related to breach of duty of
- Since the Criminal Code is silent about duty of care or its punishment, the plaintiffs rely on the estimate of this Honourable Court regarding a possible award of an amount related to their damages under this heading.
- P: Claim for breach of trust:
- The plaintiffs claim that the Crown is responsible for their damages arising from breach of trust. Zoltan A. Simon signed a sponsorship agreement with and for Ms. M.
Reyes in January 1999. He gave his signature only because he relied on the honesty of the Crown, the CIC forms and their texts, including the Crown’s obligation to solve financial controversies before a Court regarding defaults. Also, he relied on the
severability clause of those CIC forms. These factors gave him the impression that the Crown was acting in good faith, without any fraudulent intent, during the compilation of the texts in these two CIC forms. After all, Canadians seemed to be the most honest
nation on Earth in 1999.
- The Crown failed to reveal material information as follows: (A) There was no Court of competent jurisdiction in Canada assigned to severe portions of the CIC agreements. (B) The provincial authorities would not obey any law
that would enforce the sponsored persons’ obligations in trying to find work and support themselves. (C) The sponsors accepted 100% responsibility for damages arising from any unlawful act, omission or neglect committed by the provincial public servants.
(D) The provinces were more powerful than the Government of Canada, so they were allowed to garnish any sponsor at any time – even after decades of total silence – without any debt certificate filed at the Federal Court or the involvement of any
Court, imposing compound interest at any rate. (E) Canada and its provinces had zero commitment to contact and inform any sponsor regarding radical changes in the relevant legislation and the Crown’s ever changing policies. Such scenario and conduct
of Canada and BC was unimaginable for the plaintiff when he signed his agreement with Ms. Reyes.
- Pursuant to section 122. of the Code, every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or
a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
- A minister’s
imprisonment for five years may reasonably be converted to an amount of $250.000 since a Minister of the CIC or CRA earns more than $50,000 per year. Also, the costs of his or her imprisonment would be an additional burden on Canada. Several ministers (or
commissioners) of the CIC and the CRA have been involved in this tort so far: Ms. Finley, Mr. Kenney, and Mr. Alexander, let alone the ministers of Justice. All of them have approved the unlawful CIC forms. None of them raised any objection regarding their
correctness. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim damages for breach of trust in the amount of $250,000, payable severally or solidarily by the defendants.
- Q: Charge of fraudulent conversion
of the plaintiff’s chattels:
- Introduction: The Regulations Amending the Immigration Regulations, 1978 [dated 28 July or August 18, 1999 in Canada Gazette, Vol. 133, No. 17] states the following. Section
56 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 is replaced as follows: “For the purposes of subsection 118(2) of the Act, payments that result from a breach of an undertaking and that are made directly or indirectly to an immigrant under an item described
in column I of Schedule VI are payments that may be recovered from the person or organization that gave the undertaking as a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada or in right of any province to which the undertaking is assigned.” Near the end of
this text published in the Canada Gazette, under “Compliance and Enforcement” it is added, “Whenever a sponsored immigrant obtains assistance payments of a described nature (those listed in Schedule VI of the Immigration Regulations,
1978), the federal government and a province with delegated authority are entitled to seek reimbursement (repayment) by taking that sponsor to court.” [Emphasis added.]
- In 1999, the plaintiff’s interpretation of the prescribed
procedure – taking the sponsor to a Court before reimbursement or garnishing – was the same as the Crown’s position in 1999, published in the Canada Gazette, as we demonstrated above. Starting in 2006, the Crown unilaterally changed
its position, without informing the plaintiff. In the same year, the Limitation Act extinguished any claim of the Crown against the plaintiff.
- Conversion is a tort committed by someone who deals with a chattel that does not belong to him
or her in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the lawful owner, thereby depriving the owner of use and possession.
- The conversion took place by wrongful acts by the CRA and the Province of British Columbia (the administrators of the RSBC) involving
the goods of the plaintiff: his tax refunds for the years 2007 and 2008. The Defendants’ acts consisted of handling, transferring and disposing the funds in June 2008 and June 2009. The Defendants’ actions had the effect and intention of interfering
with (and denying) the plaintiff’s right or title to his tax refunds in question.
- In short, the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) converted an instrument, namely the credit amounts of the plaintiff’s personal tax returns for 2007 and 2008, by
dealing with them under the direction of one not authorized, by collecting it and making the proceeds available to someone other (the Province of British Columbia) than the person – the plaintiff – rightfully entitled to possession. The only authority
authorizing the transaction (regarding the amounts involved in the conversion) should have been the Federal Court where, pursuant to ss. 146. (2) of the IRPA, the alleged debt of the plaintiff must have been registered and filed after
the minister’s certification of the debt. In the case at bar, the CRA and the Province of BC committed the conversion by avoiding the Federal Court, or any Court, without obtaining the authorization of a Court, and contacting them for the purpose of
registering the “debt.”
- Further, the CRA and RSBC violated the federal and provincial garnishment rules set out in the acts and regulations related to garnishment and family support procedures.
- The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
handled and disposed the plaintiff’s moneys wrongfully. They took and used the plaintiff’s chattels and exercised dominion over them that was inconsistent with the title of the owner. The plaintiff had the right to immediate possession of those
funds. The agents or/and public officers employed by the CRA intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s chattels. They converted payments, the credit balances of the plaintiff’s personal tax returns in June 2008 and June 2009, without colour
of right, collected them and made the proceeds available to RSBC that had not been authorized to collect it since British Columbia only had a debt claim against the plaintiff at that time. The sponsorship debt claim had not been certified by the Minister,
or registered and filed with the Federal Court, as prescribed by the IRPA and many similar or related enactments regarding lawful garnishment procedures. Thus, it was obviously not a debt in 2008 and 2009. Further, the RCA and RSBC have been aware
of the fact that there had been no proper lawful way to certify, register, and file the debt claim after October 2006 when, pursuant to the Limitation Act of BC, such “debt” had been extinguished.
- When the instant plaintiff signed
the Sponsorship Agreement, the Immigration Act, 1976 was in effect. The default of October 2000 took place under the old Act as well. Its ss. 118.(2) and (3) did not state that the debt may be recovered at any time. Pursuant to ss.
134. (a) of the IRPA, “No person may be found guilty of an offence or subjected to a penalty for the contravention of a provision of a regulation that incorporates material by reference, unless it is proved that, at the time
of the alleged contravention, (a) the material was reasonably accessible to the person. The plaintiff declares that the IRPA was not available for him in 1999 and in 2000 because it came to effect only in June 2002. Further, pursuant
to ss. 11. (g) and (i) of the Charter, since the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission  and the time of sentencing [2008, the garnishment], the lesser punishment for the
plaintiff would be the application of the Immigration Act, 1976, instead of the IRPA.
- For theft or conversion please refer to ss. 322. (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Criminal Code. In our case, there
was fraudulent conversion and misappropriation of monies. Pursuant to 334. (a) (i) of the Criminal Code, the administrators and principals of the CRA and the RSBC are guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding two years, where the value of what has been stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars (as in this case). Therefore, the plaintiffs respectfully submit, the Crown defendants shall pay them, severally or solidarily, an amount of $100,000
for theft or fraudulent conversion, assuming that a year of imprisonment corresponds to $50,000.
- R: Charge for interference and failure to deliver monies:
- This item is closely
associated with theft or conversion and overlaps with those issues. The plaintiff has the right to sue in conversion because he had the right to immediate possession of the chattels involved. The CRA and the Revenue Agency of BC are liable for the conversion.
The circumstances satisfy the criteria set in Columere Park Developments Ltd. v. Enviro Custom Homes Inc., 2010 BCSC 1248 (CanLII), or in Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 1996 CanLII 149 (SCC).
- In Columere
Park, supra, para. , the Court describes a test and refers to an important point to be made before going further is that the subject chattel of the tort of conversion can be funds. This is made explicit in recent jurisprudence: Ast v.
Mikolas, 2010 BCSC 127 (CanLII) at para. 128; Drucker, Inc. v. Gui, 2009 BCSC 542 (CanLII), 2009 BCSC 542 at para. 58; Dhothar v. Atwal, 2009
BCSC 1203 (CanLII), 2009 BCSC 1203 at para. 16. The apposite passage comes from Royal Canadian Legion, Branch No. 15 v. Burkitt, 2005 BCSC 1752 (CanLII), 2005
BCSC 1752 at para. 104. In Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 1996 CanLII 149 (SCC), Iacobucci J. defined the test for conversion by
- The instant plaintiff at bar is a victim of an extortion scheme through illegal garnishment. Similarly, in Kungl v. Great Lakes Reinsurance Company et al.,  R.S.C. 342 the plaintiff took a seizure by garnishment against G. L.
and the agent of L. Both garnishees made a negative declaration which was contested. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the contestation of the garnishee’s declaration. The SCC dismissed the appeal as well. Another similar case is SMX
Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Canada,  F.C.J. No. 1870 (F.C.A.). The claims about the alleged debt of the plaintiff are void, improper, unlawful, unenforceable and of no force and effect, like in Vollant v. Canada 2009 FCA 185. In Desjardins
v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004, the garnishment procedure of a disputed amount was invalid and unlawful. In Donohoe v. Hull, (1895), the judge wrote that if the alleged debt was not attachable, then the proceedings, being taken without authority,
must fail. In  of Hanif v. TJM Management Consultants Ltd. (2011) the agreement was void for uncertainty.
- The CRA’s actions had both the effect and intention of interfering with (or rather denying) the plaintiff’s right or
title to the funds. The act of conversion done by the said agents or public officers of the CRA was so serious an interference with the rights of the plaintiff that it would require serious punishment. The public servants of the CRA and the RSBC refused and
failed to deliver a certain sum to a person – the plaintiff – who was authorized to demand it and did demand it. Therefore, the CRA and the RSBC contravened section 337. of the Criminal Code [that is punishable by no more
than 14 years in prison].
- The plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Criminal Code’s prescribed terms of imprisonment indicated above, fourteen years, would reasonably apply in this case. An imprisonment for a term of 14 years, applying
the usual amount of 50,000 per year, would yield $700,000. Therefore, the claim is for an amount of $700,000 payable severally or solidarily by the Crown defendants to the plaintiffs.
- S: Charge for
contravening several Acts of Parliament:
- The officers (and ministers) of the CIC and the CRA or the Ministry of National Revenue violated ss. 146. (1) and (2) of the IRPA and, therefore, 126.
(1) of the Criminal Code, “Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly
provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
- The Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, and every administrator of the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada have been involved in
another crime or offence. Namely, they systematically, knowingly and maliciously, in bad faith, contravened sections 61., 40. (3), 43. (1), and 97. (3)of the Supreme Court Act.
- Such act or
rather systematic omission results in a significant distortion of the judicial system of Canada. It can be said that it scrambles the whole system of justice, indicating the end of democracy, constituting the first major milestone into a quasi-fascist dictatorship.
- The plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Criminal Code’s prescribed terms of imprisonment indicated above, two years, are quite unreasonable for this huge offence against a free and democratic Canada. Despite of such argument, the prescribed
imprisonment for a term of two years, applying the usual amount of 50,000 per year, would yield $100,000. However, there were three counts of this offence, namely: a long and continuous one contravening ss. 146. (1) and (2) of the IRPA
by the CIC and the CRA, two counts (2012 and 2014) of contravening s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act by the SCC Registry’s administrators. This Honourable Court may consider punitive damages as well, or, in the alternative. Therefore,
the claim is for an amount of $300,000 payable severally or solidarily by the Crown defendants to the plaintiffs.
- T: Fraudulent conspiracy and attempt of conspiracy:
- The administrators of and the Minister responsible for the CRA failed to follow their “Know Your Customer” policy, that they failed to investigate claims or transactions that they knew or ought
to have known were suspicious, unusual or indicative of unusual activity and that it failed to comply with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing
Act. A somewhat similar case was Dupont Heating & Air Conditioning Limited v. Bank of Montreal, 2009 CanLII 2906 (ON SC).
- The CRA and the CIC had a mutual MoU policy that facilitated the crime: it constituted
a conspiracy to possess proceeds of crime. These two groups cannot claim that they have been unaware of their own acts and omissions that had undermined the relevant legislation.
- In the case at bar, the plaintiffs respectfully submit, the subject-matter
is $38,149.45. This is the original amount that the Crown (especially the RSBC) has attempted to take adamantly from the plaintiff, Zoltan A. Simon, by force and abuse of power, and conspiracy, primarily from his tax account with the CRA. Therefore, the plaintiffs
respectfully submit that the responsible officers of the Crown defendant(s) involved are liable to imprisonment for 14 years. Converting those years by the usual $50,000 per year, the amount is $700,000 that is payable to them by the Crown defendants severally
- U: Mental torture by conspiracies and an extortion scheme:
- In the case at bar, torture by a conspiracy and fraudulent money extortion scheme is associated with
mental torture. Several public servants (ministers, officers and administrators of the federal Crown) participated in the long-lasting mental torture of the plaintiff. Their degree of involvement and the cruelty of each participant may have been different.
The plaintiff does not know the details and the names, only the devastating effects. An exception is the mental torture caused by the false testimony of Ms. Bridges at the SCC for which the details are shown under that claim (Perjury or False Testimony).
Perhaps the most heinous crime was the mental torture committed by the administrators of the FCA Registry in Edmonton. Between 2012 and 2014, they committed seven major errors against the plaintiff, probably by following the oral orders issued by the Head
Office of the Courts Administration Service. The purpose of such conspiracy was to break the plaintiff mentally and spiritually, so he would give up his legal actions and quit for good.
- Such mental torture during seven years, but particularly between
2012 and 2014, seemed for the Crown as an efficient weapon. It contributed to the fact that the plaintiff gradually became a nervous wreck. He hardly has a good sleep, due to sleeplessness. He has frequent nightmares or bad dreams – about filing deadlines,
paragraphs, case law and unfriendly judges – and he is often more exhausted when he wakes up. He feels that his expected life expectancy became shorter by about seven years since he had spent the bulk of his last seven years by studying the law day and
night by computers. Sometimes he has sharp pain in his heart, his eyesight became weaker, his hands tremble more. He hardly eats and his teeth are decaying because he had no money left for the maintenance of his body. He has little or no time to sleep or relax,
cook, or buy groceries. He has lost the enjoyment of his life in Canada, he is tired of living alone. He has no time left to complete his various book manuscripts about world history (as some of his works are shown on his website www.correctingworldhistory.com)
He has no time and energy left to contact publishers. This is a major loss of satisfaction and possible income for him as a writer and historian.
- The plaintiff often feels fits of anger and anguish. For example, the seven cowardly administrative tortures
during the seven (or so) procedural steps in the federal court system made him so furious that he often felt like being able to murder any public servant or become a terrorist – a mental syndrome. He has lost his identity as a good Canadian citizen that
had always respected the government and its public servants everywhere.
- Pursuant to ss. 269.1 (1) of the Criminal Code, “Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years.”
- Pursuant to ss. 380.1 (1.1) of the Criminal Code, Without limiting
the generality of section 718.2, when a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section
382, 382.1 or 400,
it shall also consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the value of the fraud committed exceeded one million dollars.
- The plaintiff believes that the grand total related to the monies of the re-victimized sponsors that have been garnisheed
or soon become garnisheed (by the violation of more or less thirty paragraphs or subparagraph of Canada’s laws) seems to be in the ballpark of 800,000,000 dollars. (This is less than Canada’s security budget of the G-8 summit 2010.)
- V: Corruption, fraud on the government:
- Since the Registrar and the administrators of the SCC Registry have been adamant for two years (2012-2014) in obstructing justice by refusing to file two notices
of appeal as of right, a reasonable person may arrive to the conclusion as follows. The Registrar himself prohibited for every administrator of the Registry to file such items because previously he has given a promise to one (or more) of his superiors to make
such omission all the time. Since the Registrar of the SCC does not have many superiors, one may reasonably conclude that the Prime Minister or the (previous) Minister of Justice placed Mr. Roger Bilodeau in a “quid pro quo” situation. We follow
below the logic of an average person: Mr. Bilodeau was appointed as the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada under a main condition. Namely, he had to give his promise or word of honour that he would consistently supress section 61. of
the Supreme Court Act, by never allowing the filing for a non-criminal that is opposing the Crown: Otherwise, he would lose his position and job.
- It is reasonably asserted that Mr. Bilodeau granted the favour of such regular omissions for
the interests of his superior(s), practically by stealing power from the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, and shifting that power to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. By doing so, the Registrar of the SCC and his superior(s) in the
Cabinet, as reasonably perceived, contravened ss. 121. (1) (a) (i), (ii), and (iv), 121. (1) (d) (i) and (ii) and 121. (1) (e) (i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code. It would
appear, with high probability, to any reasonable person familiar with the material circumstances that Mr. Bilodeau offered for the benefit of a minister or several ministers of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, an advantage or benefit as consideration
for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission. In the case at bar, the essential assistance of the Registrar was the regular omission of s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act. Such conspiracy between the Registrar
and one (or more) minister(s) of the Cabinet was a fraud on the government.
- The plaintiff claims that the Registrar accepted his appointment by one of his superiors under the condition of omission of section 61. of the Supreme
Court Act, under the promise that he would always ignore and contravene the said section in order to obtain extra powers for himself and certain minister(s) or/and the Prime Minister by unlawful means. The plaintiff has no information whether the future
superior(s) of Mr. Bilodeau approached him first or pressured him into the commitment of the said omission, or, Mr. Bilodeau made such offer to one of his future superiors before the day of his appointment as Registrar.
- An essential element of Mr.
Bilodeau’s fraudulent and corrupt conduct was the elimination of s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act from the Registry’s official website and a booklet entitled Representing Yourself in the Supreme Court of Canada,
Volume I (a guide published by Mr. R. Bilodeau, or the Registry of the SCC) which has been issued for the wide use of the public and the SCC administrators.
- Violations or offences under section 121. of the Criminal Code allow
an imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim an amount of $250,000 that is considered as reasonably equivalent with such prescribed sentence.
- Several acts and omissions of the Crown constitute “terrorist activity” even if that may seem fanciful for the Crown or its Counsel. Their activity fits the description in ss. 83.01
(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The conspiracy by fraudulent means, acts and omissions – as masterminded by the honourable tortfeasors – is pointed towards the class of re-victimized sponsors, one of the most vulnerable sectors of Canada’s
society. It occurs and has occurred in all material times in Canada – mainly Ottawa – since 2006, for a political purpose, and with the intention of intimidating a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security,
and that endangers a person’s life, and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit such act or omission. It involved the top officials and offices of the CRA, the CIC, and the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada, all located in Ottawa.
- Pursuant to ss. 83.04 (a) of the Criminal Code, Every one who uses property, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence
and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years. Since the honourable tortfeasors used Crown property – their offices and ministries – partly in order to facilitate their terrorist activities, an imprisonment for a term of ten
years would be reasonable for the leader(s). The conversion of the years of sentence by the usual way to a dollar amount would yield $500,000. Thus, the plaintiffs, it is respectfully submitted, claim a penalty or damages in the amount of $500,000 against
the Crown defendants, payable to them severally or solidarily.
- X: Possession and laundering the proceeds of crime:
- The CRA knowingly transferred the plaintiff’s monies
to the RSBC twice. Both the CRA and the RSBC knew the money was the proceeds of crime after the CRA unlawfully deposited it into its own account. It was the product of their fraudulent money extortion scheme. In contravention of the laws against laundering
money, and in order to induce money launderers – the other provinces – to deal with them deliberately, they failed to comply with the legislative scheme requiring information to be recorded, namely a ministerial certificate to be filed with the
Federal Court, in breach of the requirement of the IRPA, ss. 146. (1) and (2).
- The honourable tortfeasors and their agents did not complete the records required by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and
in the course of doing so knowingly possessed the proceeds of crime, on a number of occasions. Both the CRA and the provincial revenue services (RSBC) should have known that the money – after their conversion – was the proceeds of crime. The conversion
of monies was an offence in Canada at the relevant time. There are statutory provisions under which Canadian authorities can prosecute money laundering schemes like the one at bar. Pursuant to ss. 24. (1) of the Criminal Code, “Every
one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence…” The CRA and the RSBC have taken many preparatory steps, by their acts and
omissions, in furtherance of the attempts and the money laundering acts. They successfully laundered the proceeds of crime obtained by the commission of the designated offences of torts, fraud, misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office and abuse of power.
- One could reasonably infer that the RSBC was wilfully blind and knew that the money it received from the CRA had been the result of a money extortion scheme perpetrated by the CRA and the RSBC directed against the defenceless victims: the re-victimized
sponsors. The plaintiff remembers the reasoning of the federal Crown’s defence, probably heard from a Counsel during a hearing or perhaps from a letter from the Crown to the plaintiff. It was a lame excuse claiming that the RCA itself had been a kind
of victim as a garnishee because the Government of Canada (the CRA) had no other choice but to obey the garnishing order of BC. This argument is false since no one has seen a garnishing order issued by a Court. Also, the laws of Canada allow every garnishee
to send a letter to the Court with an explanation that the petitioner’s request to garnishee him is unlawful: for example, it is beyond the prescribed limitation period.
- In 2008 and 2009, the CRA took the monies that lawfully belonged to the
plaintiff. The CRA held – possessed – the moneys for a short while then transferred them without colour of right to the RSBC. Thus, both the CRA and the RSBC knowingly contravened subsection 354. (1)(a) of the Criminal
- The plaintiff accuses the RSBC and the CRA with two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime as follows: Count 1: involves possession of proceeds of property, obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of offence,
to wit, tort, fraud, misrepresentation and conversion, on or about June 2, 2008, implicating the public servants of the CRA and the RSBC. Count 2: involves possession of proceeds of property, obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission
of an offence, to wit, tort, fraud, misrepresentation and conversion, on or about June 4, 2009, implicating the public servants of the CRA and the RSBC. On both counts above, the CRA and the RSBC have been in possession of the proceeds
of crime in the total amount of $3,542.11 ($3,441.68 plus $100.43), obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of the designated offences of tort, fraud, misrepresentation and conversion, implicating the public servants of the CRA and the
RSBC. It is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the monies mentioned above are proceeds of crime.
- Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, HCR-375, defines “possession of property obtained by crime” as follows: Actus reus:
…The offence of having in possession is complete when a person has, alone or jointly with another person, possession of or control over anything mentioned in those actions…
- Both the CRA and the RSBC knew that it would be virtually impossible
for the plaintiff – or for any re-victimized sponsor – to conduct lengthy and costly proceedings at the courts in order to recover their chattels from a province, particularly if they had to move to another province.
- It seems that Canada
and British Columbia had an agreement on how they would split the proceeds of crime, namely, Canada apparently allowed the Province(s) to use the monies unlawfully taken from the re-victimized sponsors by the CRA, in lieu of a certain percentage of the previous
regular amount of yearly transfer payments to that Province (or any province). In other words, the Government of Canada transferred certain non-existing legal rights of the CIC and the CRA to the Province(s), by giving free hands to them in order to obtain
monies originating from tort, fraud, misrepresentation and conversion.
- The RSBC and the CRA committed offences because they had in their possession a property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all of the property or thing
or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission in Canada of tort, fraud, misrepresentation and conversion, offences punishable by indictment. Therefore, the RSBC and the CRA have violated subsection 354. (1)
(a) of the Criminal Code.
- Further, pursuant to ss. 462.31 (1) (a) and (2) (a) of the Criminal Code, also s. 2., ss. 73.1 (1) and (2) of Proceeds of
Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17, “The maximum penalty for a violation [laundering proceeds of crime] is $100,000 if the violation is committed by a person and $500,000 if the violation is committed by an entity.
(Note: the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia are two separate entities because they are organizations.)
- Pursuant to ss. 355. (a) or (b) (i) of the Criminal Code, the penalty of this punishment is
2 years of imprisonment because the subject-matter of the offence was below $5,000. However, the tortfeasors’ adamant intention is – and has been – to launder $38,149.45 by taking it unlawfully from the plaintiff: that would be punishable
by imprisonment for 10 years or less. The plaintiff respectfully submits that the proposed penalty for this tort (for the two governments) would be between $200,000 and $1,000,000, using our regular conversion. Perhaps an amount of $250,000 against British
Columbia, and $250,000 against Canada would be reasonable. Or, in the alternative, an amount of $500,000 severally or solidarily payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
- Y: Claims for damages arising
from unjust enrichment:
- On or about February 15, 2007, the plaintiff sent a bank draft to CIC in the amount of $1,190.00 (as the total of immigration and visa fees) that the Crown is still utilizing. Sending a payment to the Crown
was a service on the plaintiff’s part. Since 2007, the Crown has not provided any useful service in exchange, only torts and offences. This constitutes a financial loss for the plaintiff while an unjust enrichment for the Crown.
- Therefore, the
plaintiffs are seeking a judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for an amount of $1,190.00, with compound interest since February 20, 2007 on that amount pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.
the taxation years 2009 to 2013, the plaintiff was unable to file his personal tax returns due to the CRA’s money extortion scheme and the lack of a regulating verdict of a Court. Thus, the Defendant enjoys unlawful enrichment by using the monies of
the plaintiff’s tax account at his expense; those amounts had been assigned by federal law to the supported wife and stepson of the plaintiff through his tax credits. Within this period, the plaintiff would have needed to produce his current federal
“Notice of Assessment” from the CRA in order to apply for a group housing association. He was unable to do so because, due to the Crown tort, his only solution was not to file tax returns for 5 years. The estimated amount of the plaintiff’s
loss – and accordingly the unjust enrichment of the Crown (CRA) – for the taxation years between 2009 and 2013 is about $12,500. The plaintiff could present an exact amount before the hearing.
- For this reason, the plaintiff seeks an Order
against the Crown defendants, jointly and severally, for an additional amount of $12,500, with compound interest as applicable, on the yearly tax credit amounts still being held by CRA, pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.
- The test for unjust enrichment has three elements: an enrichment of the defendant, a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff, and an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment: Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25 (CanLII), 2004
SCC 25,  1 S.C.R. 629 at para. 30.
- The plaintiff submits that the required three criteria have been satisfied in this case: an enrichment of the Crown; a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiffs, and an absence of juristic reasons for the
enrichment. The plaintiff has shown that there was no juristic reason within the established categoriesto deny recovery to him the credit amounts taken unlawfully and fraudulently from his personal tax returns in June 2008 and June 2009 by the CRA and the
RSBC. The Crown alleges that there is and has been a contract between the plaintiff and the Crown (a minister of CIC) but such claim cannot be substantiated. There was no contract or agreement between the plaintiff and any minister. If there was a contract,
the plaintiff has never received or signed a copy of it. Further, such contract could not override the legislation.
- The plaintiff did not have a donative intent either. In 2008, he immediately protested to the RSBC against the unconstitutional garnishment
of his tax account. There is no common law case listed by CanLII that involves a garnishment of a sponsor without obtaining a ministerial certificate first, then having it registered and filed with the Federal Court, requirements established by the SCC in
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC 30,  2 SCR 504. In the latter, none of the eight sponsors alleged that those administrative steps had been missing in their cases. (Perhaps their lawyers have overlooked that circumstance.)
has been no equitable or statutory obligation of Zoltan A. Simon towards the Crown without a contract, a valid legal cause, or a court order. The plaintiff claims that he has made out a prima facie case under the juristic reason component of the analysis.
The plaintiff’s facts clearly display an enrichment of the Crown (both Canada and the Province but mainly the latter), a corresponding deprivation of the two plaintiffs (Z.A. Simon and Ms. Zhong), and the absence of any juristic reason for the Crown’s
enrichment. The Crown – the Government of British Columbia – had an obligation to pay social benefits to Ms. Reyes because it failed to advise her to return to her husband and failed to inform the husband regarding the state of affairs for almost
eight years. Thus, Ms. Reyes was no different, based on s. 15. (1) of the Charter and the laws of Canada, from any other Canadian that applied for social benefits. There is no federal or BC law that would make discrimination between
old Canadians and new immigrants when they apply for social benefits. It there would be such discriminative law, the said section of the Charter (the Constitution Act, 1982) would render it invalid and unconstitutional. In other words, the
government of British Columbia, under legislation, was obliged to pay social benefits to Ms. Reyes because their Ministry reduced her to a “not self-supporting” status.
- It would be too lengthy to list the plaintiff’s losses due to
his costs (printing, binding. ExpressPost, travel expenses, cost of a consultation with a lawyer, filing fees at the courts, and the amounts of the several court orders that all ended up in the nowhere since the SCC Registry unlawfully silenced them. The plaintiff
has paid those amounts to the Crown – except the last few due to his bankruptcy – and the Registrar unlawfully prevented his appeals to the SCC. Therefore, he has lost the chance to retrieve those amounts from the Crown. Many of these resulted
in Canada’s enrichment by unlawful and tortious ways. This Honourable Court may find sufficient details and numbers in the table of the plaintiff’s damages above on page 22.
- Z: Claim for
defrauding the public by deceit or falsehood
- The plaintiff respectfully submits that the Crown defendants – both Canada and the Province of British Columbia – defrauded the instant plaintiff and the public, namely the sponsors
in the family class, of their monies. Pursuant to 380. (1) (a) of the Criminal Code, both defendants are guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter
of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars.
- An unknown percentage of the above mentioned estimated $700,000,000 seems to be above $5,000. The governments of Canada and
British Columbia defrauded the public, the re-victimized sponsors, by hundreds of millions of dollars, through deceit and falsehood, taking their monies unlawfully.
- The plaintiffs respectfully submit that a fine against the Crown in the amount of
$700,000 would be reasonable, considering the unprecedented size of the fraud or deceit. This seems to be the largest government fraud case in Canada’s history since 1867. This claim is distinguishable from the one above-mentioned “fraud and false
pretences” category because it would punish the entire power pyramid of fraud itself.
- This pyramid of frauds is comparable well to the case of Mr. Madoff. He only cheated a few thousand very rich, naïve, and greedy persons. Poor Bernie
Madoff got a jail sentence of 150 years. In comparison, the Canadian version of the pyramid is much more ambitious, more reckless, and far crueler.
- Claim for violations of the plaintiffs’ Charter
rights, mental suffering:
- A definition of offence is a conduct prohibited by law on pain of punishment. The word “offence” means conduct (truly, culpable misconduct) defined and prohibited by law, which, if found
beyond a reasonable doubt to have been committed in fact, is punishable by fine, imprisonment or other penalty imposed according to law upon the culpable miscreant, the offender. The word “offence” includes offences against an Act of the Legislature
of the province or a regulation, by-law or other instrument having the force of law in the province. “Offence” means (a) for Canada, an offence created by a law of Parliament that may be prosecuted upon indictment, or an offence created by
the Legislature of a Province.
- The heading “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters” at s. 11. of the Charter should be interpreted liberally, pursuant to s. 12. of the Interpretation Act.
Also, the word ”offence” must be interpreted liberally and remedially. The same rule is valid for the word “penal” because the re-victimized sponsors are penalized by cruel financial means and by a forced separation from their spouses.
The plaintiff respectfully submits that the above mentioned section 12., with sections 15. (1) and 52. (1) of the Charter, override a narrow interpretation of s. 11. of the Charter.
Thus, it is a falsehood to claim that s. 11. of the Charter applies only for criminals and not for innocent victims of torts that have been punished or penalized as if they were criminals. Further, the word “offences”
should be interpreted as both proven offences and offence allegations, including unpaid debt claims related to a province. Paras.  to  in Dhanani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 169 (CanLII) may apply here regarding
financial issues or impediments that can be interpreted in different ways.
- Since 2012, the plaintiff has been denied his Charter rights and procedural fairness in the Courts (FCA and SCC) by the registries and the Courts Administration System.
The most shocking violation of Canada’s laws was the SCC Registrar’s repeated denial to file his two notices of appeal under s. 61. of the Supreme Court Act since 2012, and his latest Motion to the C.J. in the spring of
2012. (Such motion should have been accepted for filing regardless the fate of his Notice of Appeal as of Right.) In Canada (Attorney General) v. Matthews, 1997 CanLII 5879 (FC): the Court stated, “… That would be an application of the
principle that form should not take precedence over substance. A camouflage to deprive a person of a protection given by statute is hardly tolerable.”
- In para. 25 of R. v. Wigglesworth, 1987 CanLII 41 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 541, Wilson,
J. dealt with the definition of “offence” in s. 11. She said: “a. The rights guaranteed by s. 11 of the Charter are available to persons prosecuted by the state for public offences involving punitive sanctions, i.e.,
criminal, quasi-criminal and regulatory offences, either federally or provincially enacted.” In In para. 32 Wilson, J. says: a. In my view, if a particular matter is of a public nature, intended to promote public order and welfare
within a public sphere of activity, then that matter is the kind of matter which falls within s. 11. It falls within the section because of the kind of matter it is.
- The instant plaintiffs respectfully submit that Madam Justice Wilson’s
reasoning should apply here and the issues fall within s. 11. of the Charter. Here the “matter is of public nature, intended to promote public order and welfare within a public sphere of activity.” The Crown has been prosecuting
them for over seven years based on their alleged “quasi-criminal and regulatory offences” in such public sphere like persons that were in arrears in paying their overdue tickets issued by a municipality for parking violations.
to s. 15.(1) of the Charter, Canadian sponsors should have equal rights than new Canadian aliens. A new Canadian, after three years of work in Canada may sponsor a spouse that escapes from him or her immediately. The Crown pays benefits
for that sponsored person improperly, by sending him/her to universities for 10 years, without ever notifying the sponsor. [Such sponsored persons – arriving from a Third World country where they cannot afford to buy milk, bread, or rice – living
on the government’s support in Canada, attending university for many years free of charge, while walking on the streets of beautiful Vancouver that are covered with pink petals of the Japanese cherry trees cannot be called “disadvantaged individuals
or groups.”] Now, after a silence of 40 years and without a court hearing, the Crown starts to garnishee their sponsor, charging him/her an extremely high compound interest. This scenario cannot be imagined in any civilized country but it is the routine
in the Canadian Government since 2006. The obvious interpretation is that, since 2006, Canada is not a civilized country. At least not from the re-victimized sponsors’ point of view since the Crown is destroying their lives.
- Section 7.
of the Charter applies in this exceptional case, considering the “thin skull” principle. If the plaintiff would become a discharged bankrupt in April 2015, and would file a new application for the immigration of his wife (Ms. Zhong) and
her son, it may take another 2.5 years for the CIC or the IRB to grant him a hearing, just like earlier. (Or, as a revenge of the CIC, it may take 3 or 4 years. Also, the waiting list is longer than in 2007.) There could be another six months from the hearing
to the panel’s decision. Thus, the verdict may say, “Now we are in 2018 and the sponsor, Mr. Simon, is 69 years old. By law, he is not allowed to work beyond the age of 70. Service Canada has indicated that his future pension benefits may be garnisheed
without any procedure in a court. It is plain and obvious for the panel that the sponsor would be unable to support his wife and stepson beyond the year 2019. Therefore, the application for the permanent residency of Ms. Zhong and her son is dismissed.”
- Considering such probable scenario, the plaintiff’s life, liberty, and security are at play. If his family cannot live in Canada, his best chance is to apply for political asylum in China as a Canadian refugee. If he would succeed – it is quite
unlikely because China usually does not accept immigrants – he would be at the mercy of China’s government and communist party. If Canada would garnishee, say, 50% of his pension benefits, he could not support his family and pay their dwelling
costs. He would not have any medical coverage and he hardly speaks Chinese. Without an efficient hospitalization, he may pass away soon.
- After this long introduction, the plaintiff submits that his Charter rights set in sections 7.,
8., 11. (a), (b), and (e), 12., and 15. (1) have been violated. He submits that his family – particularly his person – has been subject to unusual and
cruel treatment and punishment, also excessive stress since 2006. Pursuant to s. 8. of the Charter, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” The plaintiff submits that the snatching
of his tax credit amounts in 2008 and 2009 by the CRA and the RSBC were “unreasonable seizures.” He was charged with the offence of a major debt but the Crown failed to inform him without unreasonable delay – that is maximum 30 days –
of the specific offence, and avoided to take him to a trial within the same reasonable time. Therefore, the Crown infringed his Charter rights regarding ss. 11. (a) and (b). Also, applying the liberal and remedial
reading of the Interpretation Act, he was denied reasonable bail without just cause. Namely, Ms. P. Lipsack, Counsel and representative of the British Columbia ministry involved, denied him a reasonable payment plan that would have been equivalent
with a bail. Therefore, ss. 11. (e) of the Charter was contravened as well. A “bail” – by $200 monthly payments – was allowed for a Vietnamese man that owed over $101,000 to British Columbia.
- In Solis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 69721 (CA IRB), the appellant was allowed to repay his debt (about $15,700) at a rate of $200 per month. (He appealed the visa officer’s refusal to issue the permanent resident
visa for his wife in El Salvador. His appeal was allowed.)
- In another judgment, Manitoba v. Khaleghi-Hashemian (2002) the Court held that the province cannot charge any debt amount to a sponsor before the sponsor’s effective notification
by a letter. This case is quite an important authority and it is applicable to Zoltan A. Simon’s situation. He has received from the Crown the first notification in 2007 about the debt of Ms. Reyes. Therefore, based on the analogy with Manitoba v.
Khaleghi-Hashemian, supra, the instant plaintiff’s sponsorship debt is zero. Another case is Hagos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 93849 (CA IRB) in which Mr. Hagos, who was 60 years old and legally
blind Ethiopian man, succeeded in sponsoring his second wife despite of his earlier sponsorship debt.
- The plaintiffs request this Honourable Court to consider the IAD’s decision in Forrest v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
 Collison, July 18, 2006 IAD TA4-19352. The appellant in Forrest found herself in circumstances similar to those of the appellant in that she has sponsored a parent and siblings to Canada who subsequently each received social assistance benefits
and whose combined debt was also very large (exceeding $130,000). Ms. Forrest was also a single mother who had six children. She succeeded in her appeal.
- Still another case is Dzihic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 in which
Mr. Dzihic succeeded as well when sponsored his second wife despite of his earlier sponsorship debt. In the instant case at bar, the CIC and IAD (IRB) and the federal courts adamantly refused the family unification of a Chinese and a Hungarian citizen. It
appears that Canada’s authorities have a racial discrimination against Chinese and Hungarian people, based on nationality. The words of the Tribunal in Dzihic, supra, apply for the instant plaintiffs as well, “The facts of this matter clearly would
excite in a reasonable man in a civilized community a desire to relive the misfortunes of another.”
- In Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Barkman et al., 2007, the defendant relied upon the following excerpt
from the plaintiff’s policy – an internal memorandum – in this area: … IMMIGRANTS … immigrants enter Canada on the basis of another person or an organization sponsoring … into the
country. The sponsor undertakes to financially provide for the sponsored person(s) … various lengths of time. Under the current federal legislation, the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, when a sponsorship is in place it may be for a period of one to ten years. 13.3.2 APPLICATIONS FROM IMMIGRANTS When a person who has been in Canada for less than 10 years applies
for EIA benefits, it is necessary to determine if there is an active sponsorship for that person or any of the dependants for whom EIA benefits are being requested. … If a review of the immigration documents indicates that an active
sponsorship is in place, EIA staff must determine why the person finds it necessary to apply for assistance as the sponsor has a legal obligation to provide for their basic needs. The applicant must sign a release that authorizes EIA to contact the defaulting
sponsor, authorizes the sponsor to provide information relevant to the person’s application for assistance, and to advise the applicant that the Department may take legal action against the sponsor to recover any assistance that is provided for the applicant
and his/her dependants (if dependants are also sponsored). EIA staff must contact the sponsor and explore the sponsor’s ability to honour the legal undertaking. Please note that the requirement for staff to contact the sponsor may be deferred
by the EIA Social Services Program Manager when the situation suggests that there is “risk of harm” to the applicant/children, by the sponsor. If the applicant’s sponsor contends they are unable or unwilling to honour the sponsorship
undertaking, and the applicant is otherwise eligible for assistance, the EIA Social Services Program Manager may approve enrollment. 13.3.3 RECOVERY OF ASSISTANCE FROM DEFAULTING SPONSOR OF IMMIGRANTS Immediately
following enrollment, the EIA Social Services Program Manager must send, by registered mail, a letter to the recipient’s sponsor (with faxed copy to Immigration Canada) advising that legal action may be taken to recover assistance issued as a result
of the sponsor’s breach of the Sponsorship Undertaking. The approved letter must be used, and staff must verify from the Acknowledgement of Receipt Card issued by Canada Post that the correct person received the letter. The acknowledgment
card must be retained. If the sponsor did not sign the acknowledgment card, efforts must be made to contact the sponsor to confirm that s/he received the letter and understands the contents. If the sponsor denies having received the letter, the
EIA staff must advise the sponsor of the purpose and general contents of the letter and make arrangements to ensure that the sponsor receives an additional copy of the registered letter. Information regarding the date of contact with the sponsor and
any outcomes are to be entered on the EIA participant’s SAMIN case note.
- Until the end of 2007, Zoltan A. Simon has never received such letter advising that legal action may be taken against him due to his alleged breach of sponsorship undertaking.
- It is clear that the plaintiffs (Mr. Simon and Ms. Zhong) have suffered significant damages as a result of the Crown’s torts, frauds, and breach of contract (if a contract has ever existed).
- The plaintiffs in the case at bar have established
that (a) the law in question created an adverse distinction based on an enumerated or an analogous ground and (b) the impact of the distinction perpetuated disadvantage, prejudice or stereotyping for them:Quebec (Attorney General) v. A,
2013 SCC 5 (CanLII), 2013 SCC 5 at para 324. The plaintiff may reasonably claim for damages under this heading: discrimination based on nationality as a violation of s. 15
of the Charter. However, his table on page 22 is complete and the insertion of a line now would scramble his whole document and ruin the dollar figures.
- Claim for breach of fiduciary duties:
- The plaintiff submits that CRA holds the Canadian taxpayers’ monies in trust as a trustee or a bank and owes a reasonable fiduciary duty to them against crimes or misadministration. He submits that the sponsors have been at the mercy of the Crown’s
discretion when they signed their sponsorship agreements. Further, he submits that the Crown (the CRA) should have handled and held his tax funds as a trustee.
- In Guerin v. The Queen,1984
CanLII 25 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 335 at 384, Dickson J. used the following definition of fiduciary duty:
- Professor Ernest Weinrib maintains in his article The Fiduciary Obligation (1975), 25 U.T.L.J. 1, at p. 7, that “the hallmark of a fiduciary
relation is that the relative legal positions are such that one party is at the mercy of the other’s discretion.” Earlier, at p. 4, he puts the point in the following way: Where there is a fiduciary obligation] there is a relation in which the
principal's interests can be affected by, and are therefore dependent on, the manner in which the fiduciary uses the discretion which has been delegated to him. The fiduciary obligation is the law’s blunt tool for the control of this discretion.
- For example, “Although the Crown in many instances does owe a fiduciary duty to aboriginal people, it is the nature of the relationship, not the specific category of actor involved, that gives rise to a fiduciary duty.” In Authorson (Guardian
of) v. Canada (Attorney general), 2002 CanLII 23598 (ON CA), the Court stated that the Crown had a fiduciary duty to pay interest on the funds of veterans. The taxpayers are in a similar situation and the CRA has to pay them interest as one of its fiduciary
duties. In the circumstances of the instant case at bar, it is plain and obvious that only a Court could decide if a fiduciary duty can or cannot exist. There is a serious question of law as to whether or not a fiduciary duty exists here.
- Madam Justice
Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada in Frame v. Smith 1987 CanLII 74 (SCC), (1987), 42 D.L.R. (4th) 81 at 98‑99 (S.C.C.), stated: [T]here are common features discernible
in the contexts in which fiduciary duties have been found to exist and these common features do provide a rough and ready guide to whether or not the imposition of a fiduciary obligation on a new relationship would be appropriate and consistent. Relationships
in which a fiduciary obligation has been imposed seem to possess three general characteristics: (1) The fiduciary has scope for the exercise of some discretion or power. (2) The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect
the beneficiary’s legal or practical interests. (3) The beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the discretion or power.
- The plaintiffs submit that, in the case at bar, the three elements listed
by Madam Justice Wilson are and have been present between the parties so some fiduciary duty existed. But, again, it is too late to insert another line and amount in the table above (p. 22).
- A concise
summary of the legal basis for the relief sought:
- It is not beyond all doubt that the plaintiffs’ claim is clearly impossible to success. British Columbia is under a Liberal government that is careful in observing the laws of
Canada and the Province. The court system of BC is not as corrupt as the federal one, particularly keeping the Courts Administration Service in mind. It is not certain that this matter would get into the hands of judges that are corrupt, biased, or not independent.
Therefore, the plaintiffs respectfully submit that they have more than a scintilla of chance to succeed.
- By and large, the (Conservative) Crown’s typical tricks are as follow: Through silencing and eliminating a paragraph “A” that
a minister or a registrar does not like while arbitrarily extrapolating a bit similar paragraph “B” beyond logic, against the Interpretation Act. The final result is that paragraph “A” disappears and the modified paragraph
“B” is exactly the opposite of the original purpose of paragraph “A.” Thus, the minister defeats the legislation and Parliament’s will by fraud.
- In the case at bar, the Crown (CIC, CRA, and RSBC) eliminates section 146.
of the IRPA while misinterprets its section 145. (3) by unlawful extrapolation. Similarly, the Registrar of the SCC and his administrators eliminate section 61. of the Supreme Court Act and unlawfully extrapolate
its ss. 40. (1). By doing this, they arbitrarily add a condition (automatic appeal applies in certain criminal cases only) and remove a condition (that when errors in law are alleged, the appeal is automatic).
- In addition, the Registrar
of the SCC ignores and contravenes s. 52. of the Supreme Court Act, “52. The Court shall have and exercise exclusive ultimate appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction within and for Canada, and the judgment of the Court is,
in all cases, final and conclusive.” The Registrar is not a judge but he usurps the role of the SCC and asserts that the last word belongs to him. In other words, he acts as he would be the “exclusive ultimate appellate” jurisdiction in Canada:
a major fraud. His fraud and the conspiracy in his Registry makes Canada seem like an airplane flying upside down. [NOTE: FOR OUR DIAGRAM WITH THE CIRCLES SHOWING THE SCC REGISTRY'S TORT PLEASE REFER TO THE OTHER TABS.]
- Relevant enactments (most of them contravened or neglected by the Defendants):
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act: ss. 23.(4)
BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER
27 – Bill 14 [valid until September 30, 2002]: ss. 4 (a); 9 (1)(a) ; s. 14 [“debtor”]; ss. 15 (1)(a)(i), 15 (1)(b)(i), 15 (1)(c)(i),
15 (1)(d), 15 (3) and 17 (1): [See: http://leg.bc.ca/36th1st/1st_read/gov14-1.htm]
Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44:
ss. 2. (1)
Canada Disability Savings Act, SC 2007, c 35, s 136: ss. 12. (1), (2) and (3); 14. (1) and (3)
Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8: 23.
(1), 66. (2), 66. (2.01), 66. (2.2), 66. (2.3) and 66. (2.6)
Canada Revenue Agency Act, S.C. 1999, c. 17: ss. 42.
(1) (a) and (b)
Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, S.C. 1994, c. 28: ss. 16.1 (1)
Canada Student Loans Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-23: ss.
Constitution Act, 1982 (Part I: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms): s. 7; 8; ss. 11 (a), (b), (d), (g) and (i); 12;
15 (1); 24 (1) and (2); 52 (1).
Court Order Enforcement Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 78: ss. 3 (1).
Courts Administration Service Act, S.C.
2002, c. 8: ss. 2. (b)
Criminal Code: 21. (1); 22. (1) and (2); 24. (1); 83.01 (1) (b) (i) (A) and (B); 83.01 (b)
(ii) (B), (C), and (E); 121. (1) (e); 122.; 126. (1); 129. (a), (c) to (e); 131. (1); 132.; 134. (1);
137.; 139. (2); 269.1 (1) and (3); 279. (2); 322. (1), (2), (3) and (4); 337.; 346. (1); 354. (1) (a);
355. (a) or (b); 362. (1) (a) and (2) (b); 380. (1)(a); 380.1 (1) (a) to (d) and (f); 380.1 (1.1); 462.3(1);
462.31 (1) and (2); 463. (a) and (b); 464. (a) or (b); 585. (a), (b), (c) and (d); 586.
and Proceedings Act, RSC 1985, c C-50: ss. 3. (b)(i) and (ii); 32.; 35. (1)
Customs Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (2nd Supp): 113.
Employment and Assistance
Act [SBC 2002] Chapter 40 [Assented to May 30, 2002]: ss. 5 (1) and (2); 8 (1).
Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23: 46.1 (4)
Family Maintenance Enforcement Act [RSBC
1996] Chapter 127: ss. 1 (1) [“debtor”]; ss. 15 (1); 16 (2) and (4).
Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 4 (2nd Supp.): 23. (1)
[“Minister”]; 32.; 45.; 50.
Family Support Orders and Agreements Garnishment Regulations, SOR/88-181: s. 8. and 9.
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7:
ss. 39. (1) and (2)
Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 ss. 449. (2) (b)
Financial Administration Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 138: ss. 80
(2); s. 84.
Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11: 17. (4); 23.(1) [“other debt”]; 23.(2.1); 67. (a)
Act, RSBC 1996, c 166: 1 (1)(a); 2; 3; and 5 (3).
Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. G-2: ss. 6. (2); 32. (2); 42. (1) (b) and 42. (2)
Immigration Act, 1976 [Revised
Statutes of Canada, 1985 – Volume V]: ss. 118. (2) and (4)
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27: ss. 3. (1) (a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (j); 4. (1); and (1.1); 124. (1); 126.; 127. (a) and (b); 128. (a);
129. (1) (a) and (d); 131.; 134.; 145. (1) (a) and (b); 145. (2); 145. (3); 146. (1) and (2); 191.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227: ss. 132.(4)(a),(b),(c); 133. (1)(g)(i); 135. (a)(i); 135. (b)(ii);
153. (3); 258.; 318.; 348. (6)
Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172: ss. 2. (1) [“debt obligation”]; 4. (3); 5.
(2) (iii); 6.1 (2)
Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp): ss. 223. (2) and (3)
Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238: s. 8; 12; 14
Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21: s. 12.; 13.; 14.; 15. (2); 42. (1)
Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c 266 [Repealed]
ss. 3 (1); 3 (5); 9 (1); 9 (3)
Old Age Security Act, R.S.C., 1985, c O-9: ss. 37. (2) to (2.01); 37. (2.2) to (2.5)
Act, RSC 1985, c P-4: ss. 55.01
Personal Property Security Act [RSBC 1996], Chapter 359: ss. 1 (1) [“debtor” (a), “default” and “certificated security”].
of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17: s. 2. [“money laundering offence” means an offence under subsection 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code;
“violation” by an entity]; 73.1 (1) and (2).
Regulations Amending the Immigration Regulations, 1978 [28 July or August 18, 1999 in Canada Gazette, Vol. 133, No. 17]
Rules of the Supreme Court
of Canada : 3.(1); 6.(1); 7.(2); 78.(1)
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26: ss. 2. (1): “judge” and “Registrar”
(interpretation); 40.(1); 40.(3); 43.(1)(a); 52.; 61.; 97. (3)
IP 2 – Processing Applications
to Sponsor Members of the Family Class. 2006.
MuO (or Memorandum of Understanding between the CIC and the CRA. 2006.
Representing Yourself in the Supreme Court of Canada, Volume I (a guide published by Mr. R. Bilodeau,
Common law authorities:
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, SC 1997, c 20: 23.(4)
Amankwah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2007 CanLII 69745 (CA IRB)
A.M. Matthews, 2003 ABQB 942 (CanLII)
Bhaiyat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 48219 (CA IRB)
Bilson (et al.) v. Kokotow (et al.) (1978) 23 O.R. (2d), C.A. [April
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC 30,  2 SCR 504
Coast Capital Savings Credit Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011 BCCA 20 (CanLII)
Dzihic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2008 CanLII 75576 (CA IRB)
Forrest v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)  Collison, July 18, 2006 IAD TA4-19352.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Barkman et al., 2007 MBQB 54
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. Kabamba et al., 2006 MBQB 201 (CanLII)
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto,  2 SCR 1130
Krpan v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 595 (CanLII)
Lee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 34328 (CA IRB)
Longley v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 1999 CanLII 5750 (BC SC)
Mahali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 68211
(CA IRB) [she had a debt for an immigration loan but the application was approved]
Manitoba v. Khaleghi-Hashemian, 2002 MBQB 1 (CanLII)
Markevich v. Canada, 2003 SCC 9,  1 SCR 94
McMaster v. Canada,
2009 FC 937 (CanLII) [misfeasance in public office, he succeeded]
Roncarelli v. Duplessis,  SCR 121
R. v. McCraw,  3 SCR 72
R. v. Pilarinos, 2002 BCSC 452 (CanLII)
R. v. Théroux,
 2 SCR 5
Runcer v. Gould, 2000 ABQB 25 (CanLII)
Solis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 69721 (CA IRB)
Tieu, Tu Le v. M.C.I. (IAD VA3-01729), Clark, [RefLex decisions: May 11, 2004]
Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18,  1 SCR 595
Young v. Bella, 2006 SCC 3,  1 S.C.R.
and Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey. Remedies: The Law of Damages (Second Edition). Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2008.
Furmston, Michael. Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston’s Law of Contract. Oxford, 2007.
Waddams, S. M. The Law of
Damages (Third Edition). Toronto: Canada Law Book Inc., 1997.
Williams, Glanville L. Joint Obligations. London: Butterworth & Co. Publishers Ltd., 1949.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Dated on this
23rd day of May, 2014, in the City of Red Deer, the Province of Alberta.
Zoltan Andrew Simon, Plaintiff (Self-represented)
Zuan Hao ZHONG, Plaintiff (Represented by Zoltan A. Simon)
Plaintiff’s address for service:
72 Best Crescent
Red Deer, Alberta T4R 1H6
Fax number address for service:
E-mail address for service: firstname.lastname@example.org
Place of trial: Kelowna (or Vernon)
The address of the registry is:
Supreme Court of British Columbia
837 Park Drive
P.O. Box 1500
TEL: (250) 344-7581
FAX: (250) 344-7715
Date: 23 / 05 /2014
[ x ] plaintiff(s) [ ] lawyer for plaintiff(s)
ZOLTAN ANDREW SIMON
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and
(ii) all other documents
to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes
only and is of no legal effect.]
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: Several tort claims (including fraud and misinterpretation) against the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia for unlawfully garnishing
the main plaintiff’s tax account and preventing (since 2007) his Chinese wife to immigrate and live in Canada. The basic issue is the a previous sponsorship agreement (1999) that is invalid and void ab initio, for unconscionability and fatal errors in
the CIC forms. These controversies are related to the IRPA and its Regulations. The second issue is the arbitrary actions and omissions of the SCC Registrar who, by the violation of s. 52 of the Supreme Court Act, prevents crucial
cases to reach the panel of nine judges. Thus, the Registrar is usurping the supreme power in Canada.
Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
A personal injury arising out of:
[ ] a
motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice
[x] another cause
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[x] personal property
[ ] the provision
of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[ ] a matter not listed
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
[ ] a class action
[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[x] constitutional law
[x] conflict of laws
[x] none of the above
[ ] do not know
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: ss. 3. (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (j); 4. (1); and (1.1); 124.
(1); 126.; 127. (a) and (b); 128. (a); 129. (1) (a) and (d); 131.; 134.; 145. (1) (a)
and (b); 145. (2); 145. (3); 146. (1) and (2); 191.
Criminal Code [several sections and subsections regarding torts, fraud, conversion, corruption] Supreme
Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26: 52.; 61.; 97. (3)
Page 67 of Z.A. Simon's pleadings above
Figure 1 (1A and 1B) above demonstrates the great difference between Parliament's will and the opposite policy of the honourable white collar tortfeasors, represented by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada. (Zoltan A. Simon's diagram from his pleadings above.) Now let us jump back in time to show the Order of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer that has dismissed Z.A. Simon's originating notice of civil claim. This seems to be the FIRST JUDGMENT IN CANADA that allows a party to threaten or blackmail another party by doing an illegal or criminal step or action, including an unlawful administrative decision.
Make your own website like I did.
It's easy, and absolutely free.