http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/110036/index.do 
Keay v. Canada (June 9, 2015 – 2015 FC 724, Boswell J.).
Précis: Mr. Keay sued in tort in the Federal Court for actions of CRA in connection with assessments of his 2003 and 2004 taxation years; he had appealed those assessments unsuccessfully to the Tax Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. He represented himself and was the only witness to testify. The Crown elected not to cross-examine him. The Court concluded that none of the evidence adduced by Mr. Keay disclosed a cause of action and dismissed his claim, but without costs.
Decision: Mr. Keay had a long grievance with CRA:
[1] The Plaintiff, Mr. Keay, alleges that he has suffered damages and other losses as a result of actions and omissions by the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] and its agents or employees.
[2] In particular, the Plaintiff asserts that the conduct of the CRA and certain of its officials in the reassessments of his 2003 and 2004 income tax returns was negligent, an abuse of power, constituted misfeasance in public office, unlawfully interfered with or converted his rental income and expenses to the benefit of his former spouse, and violated his rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]. The Plaintiff further asserts that the CRA and certain of its officials were wilfully blind, withheld material information from him and ignored material facts. This conduct, the Plaintiff contends, caused him to suffer unnecessary costs and expenses as well as emotional distress.
[3] Consequently, the Plaintiff has taken this action against the Defendant, and asks this Court to award him his unnecessary litigation costs, damages, aggravated damages and consequential damages in various amounts as stated in paragraph 40 of his Amended Statement of Claim dated January 29, 2015 (the initial Statement of Claim being dated October 15, 2013).
Mr. Keay represented himself and was the only witness called:
[7] After making his opening statement, the Plaintiff called only himself as a witness. The Plaintiff's testimony focused on what he regarded as matters which had been ignored or suppressed by the CRA and its officials, and on how the 2003 and 2004 reassessments by the CRA were based on wrong information. It is not necessary to summarize the Plaintiff's testimony in any great detail in this case since, for the most part, he just repeated the various allegations stated in the Amended Statement of Claim. The Defendant elected not to cross-examine the Plaintiff on his testimony. The Plaintiff then closed his case.
The Court found that Mr. Keay’s evidence simply did not disclose a cause of action:
[15] I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not proven his case. Although the Plaintiff's testimony was not challenged by the Defendant, it was such that it did not provide sufficient facts or evidence to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the CRA and its officials misconducted themselves as alleged by the Plaintiff or that they violated his Charter rights in any way.
[16] The Plaintiff has not established that the conduct of the CRA and its officials was unconstitutional, unlawful, negligent or otherwise tortious in any way whatsoever. At best, the Plaintiff's claims are just bald assertions without any factual foundation capable of proving the causes of action alleged. Even if all of the three volumes of additional documentation adduced by the Plaintiff, as well as the other documents introduced by the Plaintiff at the outset of the hearing of this matter, were accepted as evidence, that documentation is nothing more than documentation which was previously adduced by the Plaintiff before the Tax Court and Court of Appeal. This Court is not the forum for yet another hearing of the Plaintiff’s tax troubles.
As a result his action was dismissed, but without costs.
TAGS: Income Tax Act, Tort Claims Against CRA, Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence