http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/72215/index.do 
Klundert v. Canada (June 11, 2014 – 2014 FCA 155) was yet another proceeding by Mr. Klundert arising out of his conviction for tax evasion and related matters. The Tax Court struck his appeal as it did not disclose a cause of action and was a “blatant abuse of process” (para. [39]):
http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/31220/index.do
The Federal Court of Appeal was not disposed to reverse the Tax Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal with costs:
[12] I agree with the Judge that the exposition of historical narrative combined with bare assertions results in an appeal premised upon conjecture, speculation and innuendo.
[13] The Judge also denied a request to amend the notice of appeal. In my view, the Judge properly denied such request because the proposed amendment related only to the relief requested and so would not cure the deficient nature of the pleading.
[14] The finding that the notice of appeal did not disclose a cause of action was dispositive of the motion to strike. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the notice of appeal constituted an abuse of process. Therefore, we neither accept nor reject the Judge’s analysis.
[15] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.