http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/127855/index.do
Coombs v. Canada (Justice) (November 30, 2015 – 2015 FC 1321, O’Reilly J.).
Précis: Mr. Coombs is a frequent litigant before the Federal Court. Three judicial review applications arising out of previously, and frequently, litigated issues were struck as bereft of any possibility of success.
Decision: The Court dealt with this matter succinctly:
[3] The three applications are based on numerous allegations. In essence, however, there are just three in total. The applicants allege that:
1. The Minister of National Revenue was biased and violated the Income Tax Act by allowing an unauthorized person to participate in a search and seizure in September 2006, resulting in a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the applicants’ right to a fair hearing (T-1141-15 and T-1184-15).
2. Crown Counsel (Mr Ricky YM Tang) attempted to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice by having discussions with two witnesses at a hearing before the Tax Court of Canada and, in doing so, violated the Charter and the Department of Justice Act, and denied the applicants fundamental justice and procedural fairness (T-1184-15 and T-1468-15).
3. Crown Counsel (Ms Sonia Singh) acted improperly by bringing motions to strike the earlier applications for judicial review. By so doing, she followed an allegedly illegal Direction from Prothonotary Kevin Aalto, thereby violating the Charter and the Department of Justice Act, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, and depriving the applicants of a fair hearing (T-1468-15).
…
[4] The first allegation has already been the subject of numerous previous applications for judicial review and motions to strike. Indeed, in Coombs et al v Attorney General of Canada, 2014 FC 233, Justice Catherine Kane found that it had “been the subject of five previous proceedings, all of which were dismissed” (at para 16) (affirmed 2014 FCA 222). And yet, the issue subsequently came before Justice Denis Gascon, once again, as recently as July 15, 2015 (Coombs v Canada (National Revenue), 2015 FC 869). Justice Gascon found that the application before him “boils down to a repackaging and variation on issues already decided by the courts” (at para 7). Further, he concluded that the application represented an abuse of the Court’s process.
The result was the same in the other two applications. All three applications were struck with costs to the Crown in the amount of $500 for each application:
[11] Therefore, I find that all of the allegations contained in these applications for judicial review are “so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success”. Accordingly, I will grant the respondents’ motions, with costs.