Prefontaine v. Canada

Prefontaine v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-02-03 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 52 File numbers A-175-01 Decision Content Date: 20040203 Docket: A-175-01 Citation: 2004 FCA 52 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: ROSE PREFONTAINE, and MAURICE PREFONTAINE Appellants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on January 26, 2004. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 3, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT AND REASONS FOR ORDER BY THE COURT Date: 20040203 Docket: A-175-01 Citation: 2004 FCA 52 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: ROSE PREFONTAINE, and MAURICE PREFONTAINE Appellants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR ORDER BY THE COURT [1] We are of the view that Mr. Maurice Prefontaine has no standing to be an appellant in the present proceedings for the following reasons. [2] Mr. Prefontaine was not a party to the appeal proceedings before the Tax Court of Canada at the time judgment was rendered. Counsel for the Crown suggested that he had never been a party while Mr. Prefontaine contended that he had been a party but that his name had been improperly removed from the style of cause by a judge of the Tax Court. Orders of that nature were made against him in other appeals involving Rose Prefontaine: see the decisions of Bonner J.T.C.C. in Rose Prefontaine and Maurice Prefontaine v. Her Majesty the Queen 98-458 (IT)G August 19, 1998, of Beaubier J.T.C.C. in 97-2299 (IT)G April 1, 1998 and of Herschfield J.T.C.C. in 2002-2642 (IT)G. Whether Mr. Prefontaine was never a party, or was a party whose name was struck, the result is the same: he was not a party to the proceedings below at the time judgment was rendered, and no order was made against him. And because no order was made against him, there is no relief which this court could grant him. [3] Consequently, the appeal of Mr. Maurice Prefontaine will be dismissed with costs. [4] As for the appeal of Mrs. Rose Prefontaine, it is devoid of merit. A reading of the decision rendered by McArthur J.T.C.C. shows not only that the learned judge carefully reviewed the evidence before him, but also that he provided ample and adequate justification for his findings of facts and conclusions regarding the reasonableness and the deductibility of the expenses claimed by the appellant, Rose Prefontaine, as business expenses. [5] We see no reason to repeat the judge's reasons or to add to them. The appellant has not shown to us that errors of fact or of law were committed that would warrant our intervention. [6] The appellant, who was represented at the hearing by her husband, with leave of the Court, relied upon a number of decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada: Stewart v. Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 645; Ludco Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1082; Singleton v. Canada, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1046; Canderel Ltd. v. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 147. These decisions are of no assistance in determining the issue that was before us. [7] Consequently, the appeal of Rose Prefontaine will be dismissed with costs. [8] We do not want to leave this appeal without addressing a very serious issue which arose at the hearing of this appeal. [9] In the course of making submissions on behalf of his spouse, Mr. Prefontaine became very agitated, and raised his voice to the point that the was shouting at members of the Bench. He made scurrilous allegations about the members of the Tax Court, the Attorney General and his agents, and the Registry staff. When asked to moderate his voice and his remarks, he launched into a verbal attack upon a member of the panel hearing the present appeal. His outburst was such that the hearing was adjourned to allow Mr. Prefontaine to regain his composure. As Mr. Prefontaine's abusive outburst continued even after the adjournment, he was eventually escorted off court premises by R.C.M.P. officers who were present in court. Mr. Prefontaine returned to the courtroom later but it was the view of the Court, based upon its own observations and the information conveyed to it by officers of the Court, that the interests of justice would be best served by disposing of the appeal on the basis of the materials filed, without any further argument. [10] Mr. Prefontaine is known to the Courts of Alberta and to the staff of the Registry for his abusive outbursts. He has been found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt of Court as a result of his conduct before the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. A psychiatric assessment conducted in the context of the criminal contempt proceedings concluded that Mr. Prefontaine "suffers from a persecutory type of delusional disorder or alternatively paranoid personality disorder. He believes strongly that various judges are acting in a complicit way with Canada Customs and Revenue and he appears to truly believe these allegations ... His belief that various justices are complicit with Canada Customs and Revenue is absolutely unshakable". See R. v. Prefontaine, [2002] A.J. No. 1364 at paragraph 11. [11] The intensity with which Mr. Prefontaine holds these views is illustrated by the events giving rise to his conviction with respect to the second count of criminal contempt of court. The matter before the Court was an application for a stay with respect to an order for costs. Asked to limit his remarks to the matter before the Court, Mr. Prefontaine retorted that "the Federal Government of Canada has been fiscally bankrupt for almost 20 years". When the hearing of the matter did not progress as he thought it should, Mr. Prefontaine began to insult the judge, and was later heard saying " if you're going to continue doing things like that, you'd better get used to living behind bullet proof glass". R. v. Prefontaine, supra, at paragraph 32. [12] The comments made in our presence confirm that Mr. Prefontaine continues to hold his paranoid views and that he is unable to control himself when giving them expression. [13] Mr. Prefontaine has also abused his right to represent himself and to attend at the Registry office to file his materials. Information provided to the Court by its officers shows that: - Mr. Prefontaine was verbally abusive to registry staff on July 11, 2002, July 26, 2002 and December 18, 2002; - on December 13, 2002, Mr. Prefontaine was so abusive that the attendance of security staff was required. A member of the Registry staff was provided with a security escort because of concerns about personal safety; - on June 27, 1996, Mr. Prefontaine became agitated and hit the shutter at the Registry counter so hard that it was damaged; and - there are numerous reports of abusive telephone exchanges between Mr. Prefontaine and registry staff. [14] In view of all these incidents, including the latest one before us which was troubling and which interfered with the administration of justice and cannot be ignored without bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, we believe that the persistent misconduct of Mr. Prefontaine requires that measures be taken: a) to allow the registry staff to do their duty without being subject to abusive behaviour, and to protect their physical and psychological integrity; b) to protect the integrity of the judges of this Court and the members of the Bar who appear before us and oppose Mr. Prefontaine; c) to maintain the authority of this Court over its process; and d) to ensure an orderly, efficient and secure administration of justice. [15] In making the order which follows, we are not imposing any punishment upon Mr. Prefontaine. Nor are we abridging his rights any more than is necessary to deal with an ongoing course of abusive and intimidating conduct. The power to find Mr. Prefontaine in contempt of court does nothing to address our concerns with respect to the integrity of the Court's process and the type of conduct which Registry staff should be expected to tolerate. Accordingly, an order will issue: 1- prohibiting Mr. Prefontaine from representing, or making submissions on behalf of, any other person before the Federal Court of Appeal; 2- requiring Mr. Prefontaine to be represented by a lawyer in any appearance before the Federal Court of Appeal in a matter to which he is a party, unless authorized to appear on his own behalf by a judge of this Court on motion made pursuant to Rule 369; 3- prohibiting Mr. Prefontaine from attending at any registry maintained by the Courts Administration Service - Service administratif des tribunaux judiciaires which provides registry services to the Federal Court of Appeal; and 4- any business which Mr. Prefontaine wishes to transact with the Court shall be transacted by registered mail or by courier. [16] A copy of the present Order shall be remitted to each registry which provides services to the Federal Court of Appeal. [17] The Attorney General of Canada may wish to consider an application under subsection 40(1) of the Federal Court Act. "Alice Desjardins" J.A. "Gilles Létourneau" J.A. "J.D.Denis Pelletier" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-175-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: ROSE PREFONTAINE and MAURICE PREFONTAINE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN DATE OF HEARING: January 26, 2004 PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DESJARDINS J.A. AND REASONS FOR ORDER LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BY THE COURT: PELLETIER J.A. DATED: February 3, 2004 APPEARANCES: Mrs. Rose Prefontaine, on her own behalf Mr. Maurice Prefontaine, on his own behalf FOR THE APPLICANTS Ms. Carla Lamash FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT