Keith David Lawson - Poriskyite Tax Evader

[Burnaby49]

Actually a married couple. Case below. Same natural person argument as Porisky et al but they also throw in the capitalized names argument (KIETH LAWSON? Not me, I'm kiEtH lAWsOn, good luck finding your guy) and a new one on me, that the names of places such as "City of Burnaby" are meaningless as geographic locations for court proceedings so the defendants can't be said to have committed their offenses anywhere. Judge brings Porisky into the decision. At the end a veiled threat that if the defendants don't get their way the population of Canada will arise in outrage to redress this injustice. He also wanted the court to formally recognize him and his wife, as natural persons, as he defines the term, for the purpose of the court proceedings.

Some editing done for brevity.



R v Lawson et al
[Criminal Code 508(1)]


HEADNOTE:

Applications for certiorari (i) to quash informations sworn by a CRA investigator with respect to charges of income tax evasion, failure to collect and remit GST, and, for the applicant KDL, counselling to commit fraud, and (ii) to quash summonses issued against the applicants by a Justice of the Peace, which were based on the impugned informations. Motion by the Crown to dismiss the applicants’ motions with respect to the validity of the informations and summonses. At issue was whether the informations and summonses should be struck on the basis that (i) they failed to properly identify either of the applicants, (ii) they failed to state the geographic locations where the alleged offences occurred, and (iii) the Justice of the Peace failed to adequately hear and consider the allegations of the CRA officer. The applicants also moved for other orders that did not go to the substance or validity of the summonses. Held: Motion by the Crown granted. Applications dismissed.


Oral Judgment

Citation: 2012 BCSC 356

BETWEEN:

Regina

and

Keith David Lawson, May Dang-Lawson

COURT/JUDGE/DATE:

British Columbia Supreme Court, Myers J., February 22, 2012. (Docket: 25976)

COUNSEL:

Keith D. Lawson, for himself and May Dang-Lawson.
Mark A. Erina and Nicola M. Pfeifer, for the Crown.

Oral Reasons for Judgment

MYERS J.:—

[1] The applicants, husband and wife, filed applications for certiorari to quash informations sworn by a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigator with respect to charges of income tax evasion, failure to collect and remit GST, and, for Mr. Lawson, counselling to commit fraud. They also apply to quash the February 3, 2012 summonses issued against them by a Justice of the Peace, which were based on the impugned informations. Further, the application requests a number of other orders that do not go to the substance or validity of the summonses, and which I will describe later.

[2] At a pre-application hearing, Cullen A.C.J. directed that an application by the Crown to strike the motions as being moot or having no foundation in law should be heard on February 18. The purpose of that was to potentially save a multi-day hearing for which the Lawsons wanted to subpoena the Justice of the Peace and the CRA officer who swore the information (and possibly others). I make no ruling here as to whether that would be an appropriate procedure. It is the Crown's motion that is before me now.

[snip]

[5] Mr. Lawson represented himself and his wife.

[6] At the close of the hearing, I gave Mr. Lawson the opportunity to send in further written submissions, which I have received and considered. There is one point made that I will deal with at the outset. The supplemental argument states that I might be biased because I refused to recognise the Lawsons as "natural persons" at the outset of the hearing. The argument alluded to my role in hearing the case of R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67, to which I refer below.

[7] Bias was not something raised by Mr. Lawson during the hearing. If it had been I would have rejected it – and do so now – because no reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that a judge was biased because he had decided a prior case involving similar issues. That is something that occurs on a regular basis. Furthermore, another judge would normally be bound to follow any applicable legal conclusions from my decision in Porisky under the principle of stare decisis.

I. The informations and summonses

[8] Mr. Lawson advances both substantive and formal objections to the informations and summonses.

A. The formal objections

[9] The first formal objection I will deal with is: "a failure to properly identify either of the Applicants by his or her proper name in any of the counts or offences alleged therein." This is so, Mr. Lawson argued, because his and his wife's last name are capitalised in the informations and summonses. He cites a literary style guide in support of his argument. There is, of course, no legal requirement as to the capitalisation of names in informations, summonses or other court documents. The accused are clearly and properly identified. Style guides are not legal authority, nor are they written as such.

[10] A second formal objection is: "... failure to state the geographic location where each of the alleged offences occurred." In Mr. Lawson's supplemental argument he states:

In the Information, neither of the terms "City of Burnaby," and "Province of British Columbia" expresses a geographic location; i.e. a place, where the alleged offences were committed. The Canadian Style guide's rules for the style of geographical terms, in section 4.21(c), shows that those words are not a location, but are used in a corporate sense.

At the hearing, Mr. Lawson added that he was not a shareholder of Burnaby.

[11] I do not agree with this argument. In their context, the words clearly denote geographic locations.

[snip]


[18] Mr. Lawson has filed an affidavit deposing to a conversation he had with the Justice of the Peace. He says it indicates that the Justice acted as a rubber stamp and that he was not aware of the constituent elements of the charge of counselling fraud. I do not agree that the Justice indicated that he rubber-stamped the application for the summons. His statement to the effect that he was not aware of the constituent elements of the counselling fraud charge was made several days before the summons for that charge issued. The effect of the presumption of regularity is that it is to be assumed that he made himself aware of those elements before issuing the summons.

[19] Given that the CRA officer appeared in front of the Justice of the Peace as an informant pursuant to s. 508(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, I do not agree that the informations were defective because they improperly stated conclusions of fact and law. Mr. Lawson has not adduced evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity that the Justice of the Peace adequately heard and considered the allegations of the CRA officer in performing his duties under s. 508(1)(b).

[20] I do not agree that the Crown is obliged to seek a remedy in tax court rather than launch a prosecution for tax evasion. There have been several cases in which the Crown has obtained convictions for tax evasion and failure to remit GST. While Mr. Lawson cited cases in which the courts have acquitted on charges of tax evasion and remarked in their decisions that the Crown should have pursued the matter in tax court as a collection matter; that is, a decision that is made at a trial or preliminary inquiry. It is not for this Court to pre-determine that issue by way of a motion for a prerogative remedy.

[21] That is sufficient to dismiss the Lawsons' motion on its substantive grounds, but there is more. There were, in fact, ample grounds for the issuing of the informations and summonses and for the Crown to proceed as it did in this case. Prior to the information being sworn, Mr. Lawson had met with the CRA. On October 4, 2011, Mr. Lawson - of his own accord - provided the CRA with an affidavit he had sworn. In it, Mr. Lawson says that he acted as a "Paradigm Educator" for Mr. Russell Porisky. The clear implication is that he earned money (to use neutral terms) for doing that. The other clear implication is that Mr. Lawson was of the view he did not have to report that money as income because he was a "natural person". The natural person theory is referred to in Mr. Lawson's supplemental written argument.

[22] Mr. Porisky, his alter-ego the "Paradigm Education Group", and the "natural person" taxation argument were the subject of the Porisky judgment I issued on January 18, 2012. In that judgment I concluded that the teachings of Mr. Porisky and Paradigm had no legal validity. I convicted Mr. Porisky of income tax evasion, failure to remit GST and counselling fraud. The second Information in this matter was sworn by the CRA officer on February 1, 2012, and the summonses were issued on February 2 and February 3. Based on Mr. Lawson's affidavit and the Porisky judgment, the information and the summons were fully justified at the time they were issued.

[23] I note that while Mr. Lawson objected when the Crown referred to his involvement with Paradigm at the hearing, it is difficult to conceive why, since his own affidavit in this proceeding put the matter before me.

[24] I grant the Crown's motion and dismiss the applicants' motions with respect to the validity of the informations and summonses.

II. Other relief sought

[25] The first order sought is a declaration:

... that the court which will hear this application is the same Honorable Court having the name and style "Supreme Court of British Columbia" (the "Court"), as continued by s.2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (R.S.B.C., 1996);

[26] In his supplemental argument Mr. Lawson argues that if the declaration is not granted there is:

.... the potential that the public will begin to perceive that if no lawful superior court exists in which people can have a reasonable expectation of the equal protection of law, as provided for by the Canadian Bill of Rights, then they will no longer seek to have their disputes and grievances settled in the courts, but will be more likely to take matters into their own hands to obtain justice by more swift and certain means against perceived adversaries and oppressors.

Earlier in his argument he refers to "YouTube" videos showing people swarming the courts of England "to demand justice and chasing judges from the bench." There is a reference to the "public, who are paying close attention to this and related proceedings in growing numbers."

[27] I will give Mr. Lawson the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not meant as a veiled threat. Even so, the argument is not helpful, constructive or appropriate.

[28] There is no doubt that this is the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and no issue has been raised with respect to this Court's constitution or jurisdiction, of which the Lawsons chose to avail themselves. The motion is unnecessary and frivolous, and is dismissed.

[29] The second order sought is:

an order confirming that this Court recognizes each of the Applicants in propria persona, and each having the status of a private person, also known as a natural person, at common law for the purposes of these proceedings.

According to Mr. Lawson, this request was made of the Associate Chief Justice at the pre-application hearing and denied. I reach the same conclusion. This has no legal merit. The Lawsons are named individuals. There is no basis for the recognition of any special status, nor does one exist for them. There are no separate laws, rules, rights, remedies or procedures applicable to "natural persons" versus other individuals, or, for the sake of completeness, individual persons. In line with this, I order that the reference to "private person" following the applicants' names in the style of cause be struck.

[30] The third order sought is a declaration:

... that this Court is competent court [sic] to hear and determine these matters at common law for the purposes of these proceedings.

This is unnecessary now that I have heard and determined this matter. Further, it was unnecessary to request this since no one had challenged jurisdiction and it is the Lawsons themselves who launched these proceedings in this Court.

[31] The fourth order sought is:

an order declaring that the Applicants, who are unrepresented by counsel, are entitled to the assistance of this Court in making this application, and that this Court will provide direction and assistance to Applicants in accordance with the common law duty of a judge to assist an unrepresented individual in a criminal case;

In this regard, Mr. Lawson referred to Steemson v. The Queen, 2002 BCSC 307.

[32] This matter is now moot since I have concluded the hearing, during which I did attempt to provide the appropriate assistance. Further, it is not the appropriate subject for an order. However, since this point pervaded Mr. Lawson's arguments, it is important for the Lawsons to understand that there is only so far a judge can go in assisting a party. A judge is not an avatar of defence counsel. As stated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Kim, 2004 BCCA 57:

[65] A trial judge has a duty, whether an accused is or is not represented, to ensure a fair trial. This might be said to be an extension or a restatement in modern terms of the principle expressed in R. v. Gibson (1887), 18 Q.B.D. 537 at 543 (U.K.).

[66] But it is not and cannot be any part of the duty of a trial judge to give advice to an accused on trial tactics. Thus, for example, it is the judge's duty to advise an unrepresented accused that it is his choice whether to give evidence or not to give evidence. But as to what course is the best course for an accused in any particular case, is not a question on which the trial judge can give advice.

[67] When a poor man - there is no evidence here that the appellant could not afford counsel or was denied legal aid - had no choice but to represent himself, judges did sometimes cross the line into giving advice in order to help the prisoner and thereby prevent wrongful convictions. But there was not then and is not now any such obligation.

...

[69] Having failed to avail himself of the opportunity to retain counsel, the appellant cannot now be heard to say that the learned trial judge ought to have become his legal advisor.

See also R. v. Bonnick, 2004 ABCA 133 at para. 12; at paras. 64-69; R. v. Mirabi, [2008] O.J. No. 867 at para. 43.

[33] The fifth and sixth orders are related and can be dealt with together. They are:

• an order directing that each registry location of the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall ensure that it has a proper court seal, in accordance with s. 7(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (RSBC, 1996), having the proper name and style of the court, as set out in s. 2(1) of that Act;

• an order recognizing that the application filed by Applicants in this Court does not bear the proper seal of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as set out in ss. 7(1) and 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (RSBC, 1996), and a further order declaring that the lack of the proper seal of the Court, or the use of an improper seal, shall by order of this Court be deemed to be an irregularity that shall have no adverse effect on the substance, jurisdiction, or otherwise in respect of this application, because the Applicants were informed by the court registry that the proper court seal was not in the possession of the registry of this Court, although the Applicants did insist that the proper court seal be used to file this application;

[34] There is no relation between this issue and the validity of the Information or summonses. If the Lawsons have any standing to raise this issue, this is not the proper procedure in which to do it. These applications are therefore dismissed.

[35] All of the other applications in the notice of application have been disposed of as part of or as a consequence of my ruling on the validity of the informations and the summonses, and I will not list them separately.

[36] In summary, all of the Lawsons' applications are dismissed.

[37] At the hearing, Mr. Lawson referred to the requirement for him and Mrs. Lawson to be fingerprinted pursuant to the Identification of Criminals Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-1. If I did not quash the summonses, he requested an order delaying the fingerprinting pending the hearing of a Charter challenge he said he would be launching. In my view that is akin to a stay of proceedings or an injunction. I do not have a sufficient basis to make such an order, particularly since the Charter application has not been filed.

[38] I wish to make it clear that I am not seized of any further applications on this matter.

"E.M. MYERS, J."

[wserra]

You send us oil & gas, NYC subway cars, Fin du Monde and Neda Derakhshan. We send you sovruns.

Sounds right from this side of the border.

[Montana Notasovrun]

I occasionally play poker with a Justice of the Peace from Lethbridge. I need to ask her about the Canadian version of our Montana Sovruns. Looks like the same tired old nonsense, but maybe Canadian law allows for different nonsense. The conversation might be interesting.

[.]

We send you sovruns.

Surely you mean that we send them sovrun delusions, our precious sovruns are way too busy losing in court to actually have time to go all the way to Canada.

[Burnaby49]

We send you sovruns.

Surely you mean that we send them sovrun delusions, our precious sovruns are way too busy losing in court to actually have time to go all the way to Canada.

All the way to Canada? On a low traffic day I can make the US border in about an hour and be in Seattle in three hours if not hung up at the crossing. Your western sovereign bastion states of Utah, Montana and Washington all border on Canada. Coure D'Aline and Spokane seem to form a sovereign hub and both are much closer to the Canadian border than they are to their own state capitals. Kevin W. Harpham, the rat poison bomber, lived north of Spokane.

Sovereigns heading north to Alberta and BC seems a natural progression to me.

[Pottapaug1938]

We send you sovruns.

Surely you mean that we send them sovrun delusions, our precious sovruns are way too busy losing in court to actually have time to go all the way to Canada.

All the way to Canada? On a low traffic day I can make the US border in about an hour and be in Seattle in three hours if not hung up at the crossing. Your western sovereign bastion states of Utah, Montana and Washington all border on Canada. Coure D'Aline and Spokane seem to form a sovereign hub and both are much closer to the Canadian border than they are to their own state capitals. Kevin W. Harpham, the rat poison bomber, lived north of Spokane.

Sovereigns heading north to Alberta and BC seems a natural progression to me.

...especially since so many in the western provinces view Ottawa like so many in those states view Washington, DC.

[.]

All the way to Canada?

Our sovruns are much too busy losing in court to have time to go across the street, never mind anywhere out of state. In my case, Florida, "all the way to Canada" is indeed a long way, which is too bad, we have some real nut-cases down here that you could probably make good use of.

Perhaps your sovruns are home-grown. Who says Canadians aren't capable of latching onto and adopting internet BS? Almost sounds like a case for the BC Human Rights Commission, you know, Canucks are too stupid to follow idiotic ideas, they have to import them. Some Commissar in charge of implied-hate-speech-avoidance will no doubt be after you shortly.

many in the western provinces view Ottawa like so many in those states view Washington, DC.

Yup. About 30 years ago, I had maybe 100 Canadian clients, mostly in Alberta, and every one of them wanted Alberta to secede and join the US, which, in hindsight might be regarded as jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

In any case, they all despised Ottawa. They still do, for good reason.

[The Observer]

Your western sovereign bastion states of Utah, Montana and Washington all border on Canada

Utah borders on Canada? Seriously? Did you guys annex Montana, Wyoming and Idaho when we weren't looking?

[Burnaby49]

Your western sovereign bastion states of Utah, Montana and Washington all border on Canada

Utah borders on Canada? Seriously? Did you guys annex Montana, Wyoming and Idaho when we weren't looking?

Sorry, I meant Idaho. You've got so many states I get confused. Rhode Island and Delaware, seriously? On the other hand we do have Prince Edward Island. No idea how the hell that snuck in as a province.

If I could pick a state to annex I'd like Alaska. Finally get our coastline back.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sorry, I meant Idaho. You've got so many states I get confused. Rhode Island and Delaware, seriously? On the other hand we do have Prince Edward Island. No idea how the hell that snuck in as a province.

Because Canada needed its own potato farm?

[The Observer]

If I could pick a state to annex I'd like Alaska. Finally get our coastline back.

I'd rather give you California, New York, Illinois and a state to be named later in exchange for Alberta.

[Burnaby49]

If I could pick a state to annex I'd like Alaska. Finally get our coastline back.

I'd rather give you California, New York, Illinois and a state to be named later in exchange for Alberta.

I'm willing to go as far south as the Oregon/California border. You can keep California. Its unending deficits would swallow up the entire Canadian federal budget liked a starving seal with a herring.

You can have New Brunswick in return.

[fortinbras]

Suggest that Canada annex Hawaii. It would improve the country's temperature average.

[Pottapaug1938]

If I could pick a state to annex I'd like Alaska. Finally get our coastline back.

I'd rather give you California, New York, Illinois and a state to be named later in exchange for Alberta.

I'm willing to go as far south as the Oregon/California border. You can keep California. Its unending deficits would swallow up the entire Canadian federal budget liked a starving seal with a herring.

You can have New Brunswick in return.

Funny -- in talking with several of my Maritimer friends, I've posed the question of what would happen if Quebec finally seceded (and became the idyllic Francophone paradise which the separatists assure us it will become), and the Maritimes had to decide to 1) stay part of a now-distant Rest of Canada, 2) become independent or 3) join the U.S. I thought that #3 would not be popular, because of the area's Loyalist origins and heritage; but several people told me that the change would not be as painful as I suspected.

[Burnaby49]

Funny -- in talking with several of my Maritimer friends, I've posed the question of what would happen if Quebec finally seceded (and became the idyllic Francophone paradise which the separatists assure us it will become), and the Maritimes had to decide to 1) stay part of a now-distant Rest of Canada, 2) become independent or 3) join the U.S. I thought that #3 would not be popular, because of the area's Loyalist origins and heritage; but several people told me that the change would not be as painful as I suspected.

Given that the Maritimes are separated from the rest of Canada by what is, essentially, a hostile province, perhaps they think on a north-south axis. Option 1 would certainly be difficult if the Maritimes were physically severed from the rest of Canada by a newly-minted country that would probably try to blackmail us with transit rights. Option 2, independence, wasn't a viable concept in the past because they were, relatively speaking, impoverished and relied on federal largesse. While Newfoundland now has oil, PEI, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick still benefit from federal transfer payments and probably don't have the ability to survive on their own as an independent country, at least not to North American economic standards. That leaves option 3. Heritage and origins are fine but I'd think they would be trumped by economic reality.

[grixit]

I personally have long favored the North American Union. Not the one CNN keeps bitching about, though.

I'm thinking of a process involving 3 plebiscites and a constitutional convention. If it goes through, the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico would be dissolved and the constituent states would all become part of a new federation.

[JamesVincent]

I personally have long favored the North American Union. Not the one CNN keeps bitching about, though.

I'm thinking of a process involving 3 plebiscites and a constitutional convention. If it goes through, the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico would be dissolved and the constituent states would all become part of a new federation.

Kinda like in Meet the Robinsons where they referred to Canada as North Montana.

[Montana Notasovrun]

I personally have long favored the North American Union. Not the one CNN keeps bitching about, though.

I'm thinking of a process involving 3 plebiscites and a constitutional convention. If it goes through, the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico would be dissolved and the constituent states would all become part of a new federation.

Kinda like in Meet the Robinsons where they referred to Canada as North Montana.

Montana does border three Canadian provinces, not one of them is Utah (yet), and my friends in the South (Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas) think of Montana as North American Siberia. Montana and Alberta have a lot in common and the border is kinda inconvenient sometimes. I live near a bunch of the sovrun nutjobs and some of them are wierder than Cooter's pet monkey, and the rest are only as wierd as the monkey. I don't think Alberta would want us to share these folks with them. It might be nice to deport them somewhere though. I once told Dave Burgert that his buddy in Noxon with the Militia of Montana was just trying to scare people so he could sell them his books and stuff. Dave laughed and said he'd tell him. I hope he did.

[Burnaby49]

Another Canadian "natural person" case winding through the system, probably a Porisky acolyte. The Canada Revenue Agency seems to be finally getting serious about the issue.

This is a hearing on a technical issue regarding the validity of a search warrant which indicates a criminal case on the way. Not a good idea representing yourself on a criminal matter or following the tax ravings of a carpenter now a convicted tax evader. I didn't link to the court decision because it is not yet released on the Federal Court of Appeal website.


Lawson v MNR
[Criminal Code 487]


HEADNOTE:

At issue was whether the Federal Court erred in denying the appellant leave to amend his notice of application. The appellant had appealed to the Federal Court from a decision of the prothonotary. The notice of application related to CRA’s investigation of the appellant for a variety of offences under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act (the “Acts”), during which CRA had applied for and obtained, in the British Columbia Provincial Court, a search warrant under section 487 of the Criminal Code (the “Code”). The appellant argued that CRA’s policy of obtaining warrants under the Code rather than the Acts was illegal because the procedure under the Code is more permissive than that under the Acts. Appeal dismissed.


Oral Judgment

Citation: 2012 FCA 77

BETWEEN:

KEITH DAVID LAWSON, a natural person, Appellant

and

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE, as the minister responsible for the CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, Respondent

CORAM:

BLAIS C.J.
EVANS J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.

COURT/JUDGE/DATE:

Federal Court of Appeal, Blais C.J. and Evans and Layden-Stevenson JJ.A., March 7, 2012. (Docket: A-192-11)

COUNSEL:

Mr. Keith Lawson, on his own behalf.
Mr. David Everett and Ms. Holly Popenia, for the respondent.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 7, 2012)

LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.:—

[1] The appellant moved to amend his notice of application. Prothonotary Lafrenière (the prothonotary) dismissed the motion. The appellant appealed the prothonotary's decision to the Federal Court. Justice Pinard (the judge) dismissed the appeal and determined that the prothonotary's decision was correct. The judge's reasons are reported as 2011 FC 529. The appellant appeals to this Court from the judge's order. We are of the view that the appeal must be dismissed.

[2] The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) investigated the appellant for a variety of offences under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) and the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15 (the Acts). In the course of its investigation, CRA applied for and obtained, in the British Columbia Provincial Court, a search warrant pursuant to section 487 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the Code).

[3] In his notice of application, the appellant challenged his tax liability, the warrant's validity and the CRA's decision to apply for the warrant under the Code rather than the Acts. He subsequently sought to amend his notice of application.

[4] The prothonotary correctly stated the applicable law regarding the amendment of pleadings and concluded:

• the proposed amendments directed toward challenging the appellant's tax liabilities relate to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada;

• the decisions taken by CRA to apply for the issuance of a search warrant were administrative and procedural steps and as such not reviewable; and

• the validity of the search warrant could be attacked only in the courts of British Columbia.

[5] In dismissing the appellant's appeal, the judge held that the proposed amendments constituted a collateral attack on the warrant, challenged primarily administrative investigatory steps, had no hope of success and were not in the interests of justice.

[6] In this Court, the appellant's arguments were significantly refined and focussed. The appellant acknowledges that the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate with respect to the validity of the warrant or challenges to tax liability. According to the appellant, what he truly seeks to address in his notice of application is the CRA's policy of obtaining a warrant under the Code rather than the Acts. He maintains that the dispute will be confined to this ground. The basis for his challenge to the CRA policy is that it is illegal because the procedure under the Code is more permissive than that under the Acts.

[7] Discretionary rulings should not be disturbed lightly. In Lundbeck Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2008 FCA 265, at paragraphs 5 and 6, this Court stated:

Appellate courts, including courts of first instance when exercising an appellate function are well advised not to interfere with discretionary rulings in interlocutory matters unless satisfied that the issues in dispute are clearly material to the just disposition of the litigation and the ruling in question is fundamentally flawed. [...] The fact that the Federal Courts Act provides for appeals as of right in interlocutory matters from a Prothonotary to a Judge of the Federal Court is not an open invitation to subject discretionary decisions to close scrutiny.

[8] The difficulty confronting the appellant is that the proposed amendments do not generally relate to the discrete issue which the appellant now says constitutes the crux of his complaint.

[9] In our view, the original notice of application (appeal book, tab 3), specifically paragraphs 2, 18 and 19 of the grounds of review for the application, puts the appellant's refined challenge squarely in play. The proposed amendments, to the extent that they may peripherally touch on the warrant application issue, are superfluous. Put another way, the appellant's challenge to CRA's policy of obtaining warrants under the Code, rather than under the Acts, is on the table by virtue of the original notice of application.

[10] For these reasons, neither the prothonotary nor the judge erred in denying the appellant leave to amend his notice of application.

[11] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"

[fortinbras]

This is the same Keith David Lawson who was the defendant in the British Columbia Supreme Court decision that told him that a style manual did not have the force of law.

So it's not really "another" deluded natural person's day, it's the same deluded natural person, just on a different day.