Tilahun v. Attorney General of Canada, 2016 ONSC 2097

CITATION: Tilahun v. Attorney General of Canada 2016 ONSC 2097

COURT FILE NO.: 15-64371

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Abebe Tilahun

Plaintiff

– and –

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant

Self-Represented

Mathew Johnson and Sarah Jiwan, for the Moving Party Defendant

HEARD: March 24, 2016

Endorsement

MARANGER J.

1This was a motion brought by the Attorney General of Canada for an order striking out the statement of claim and dismissing the action. The motion is brought pursuant to rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

2The plaintiff claims that, since 2007, undercover secret agents have engaged in authorized surveillance of him and have persistently attacked him with remote-controlled laser radiation.

3The plaintiff further asserts that these attacks have been part of a government conspiracy which resulted in officials from Public Safety Canada making arrangements to have him arrested when he attempted to hand-deliver correspondence to their Minister.

4In the statement of claim the plaintiff claims an unspecified amount of general, aggravated as well as punitive and exemplary damages. The plaintiff further seeks declaratory relief that his rights pursuant to the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms have been violated.

5Some of the specific allegations in the claim include that the plaintiff is being attacked at all times and all places including his home, his place of worship, on public transportation, at work and other public places through the use of remote controlled laser radiation; He further states that he is constantly under the surveillance of government secret agents.

6The claim includes photographs of the plaintiff’s apartment, the lighting in his apartment and injuries to his body he claims are caused by the radiation.

7The specific torts alleged by the plaintiff include but are not limited to: negligence for failing to uphold his charter rights, assault and battery, conspiracy to injure, conspiracy to use unlawful means to injure, abuse of power and intentional interference with economic interests.

8The claim should be struck as it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

9The test for determining whether to strike out a claim is whether it is “plain and obvious” that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or prospect of success. See Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board [2013] O.J. No.1082 Ont. SCJ para 12.

10In this case I would not grant leave to amend the pleadings. The pleadings are incurable. The claim alleges acts said to have been performed by the defendant that could never be substantiated in a court of law. Furthermore, what is alleged against the defendant does not disclose a comprehensible cause of action. It is plain and obvious that the pleadings disclose no action that has a reasonable prospect of success.

11Therefore the motion is granted the statement of claim is struck and the action is dismissed.

12Given the unusual circumstances of the plaintiff. I exercise my overarching discretion and make no order as to the costs of this motion.

Maranger J.