Mpamugo v. CRA, 2016 ONSC 7569
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
Lawrence Mpamugo, Applicant
– and –
Canada Revenue Agency, Respondent
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
READ: December 5, 2016
Endorsement
1The respondent asks the registrar to review this proceeding pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(6). The registrar has directed it to the court pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7)
2According to Mr. Mpamugo’s notice of application, in the 1990s he defrauded the Ontario Student Loan Program to the tune of $5.7 million in connection with the operation of a private vocational school. He was convicted of fraud in 2004. A number of banks brought civil proceedings against Mr. Mpamugo for the recovery of loans made to students of the school as a result of his fraud. The banks obtained mareva injunctions freezing the applicant’s assets pending the outcome of the civil proceedings. At the same time, the respondent issued requirements to pay under the Income Tax Act and registered them with the Federal Court of Canada. The respondent used its statutory garnishment procedures to collect back taxes from funds seized under the mareva injunctions.
3Mr. Mpamugo claims that the CRA’s garnishments violated the terms of the outstanding mareva injunctions. He seeks the return of all funds garnished by the respondent plus interest.
4It appears on the face of the application that the CRA was proceeding under valid process issued by the Federal Court of Canada. Moreover, it appears that this court has previously determined that the CRA’s claims are valid and enforceable. By an order made by Code J. dated September 22, 2009, in court file no. CV-09-373971, the court explicitly varied the mareva injunctions to the extent necessary to allow the CRA to enforce its entitlement to seize assets as specified in the order. That order was made in proceedings among a number of Mr. Mpamugo’s creditors in which the priority of their respective claims was resolved. Mr. Mpamugo was not a party to those proceedings.
5On the face of the application and orders in the court’s files, it appear that Mr. Mpamugo’s claim may be an attack on process issued by the Federal Court of Canada that has already been recognized by this court. As such, this application appears to ask to re-litigate matters already determined or that cannot be determined by this court. Re-litigating things that have already been determined by the court is an abuse of the court’s process. Therefore, the plaintiff should be requested to explain why his application should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 for being an abuse of process.
6On reviewing the material forwarded by the registrar, the court makes the following order:
a. Pursuant to subrule 2.1.01(3)(1), the registrar is directed to give notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 dismissing the application;
b. Pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1 or further order of the court, the application is stayed pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.431;
c. The registrar shall accept no further filings in this application excepting only the applicant’s written submissions if delivered in accordance with rule 2.1.01(3);
d. In addition to the service by mail required by 2.1.01(4) rule, the registrar is to serve a copy of this endorsement and a Form 2.1A notice on the applicant and counsel for the respondent by email if it has their email addresses.
F.L. Myers J.
Date: December 5, 2016
Footnotes
- See Gao v. Ontario WSIB et al., 2014 ONSC 6100