BETWEEN:
and
ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick,
on December 14, 2015)
The Plaintiff
seeks an appeal de novo, by way of
motion pursuant to the Federal Courts
Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November 12, 2015, in which
Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim in its entirety.
At the outset
of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a letter dated September
10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then capacity as Past President of the New
Brunswick Branch of the Canadian Bar Association, and the then President of the
Branch, Kathleen Quigg, (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter he stated:
As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may
I suggest that you check the work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law
firm including you. You are your brother’s keeper.
Frank McKenna
is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former colleague of mine at the
law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to expressing an intention to sue me,
the Plaintiff refers to a number of people in his Motion Record who he appears
to contend may be witnesses or potential parties to be added. Those individuals
who are known to me personally, include, but are not limited to the former
Prime Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former Attorney
General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, Vic
Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore; former Director of Policing
Services, the late Grant Garneau; former Chief of the Fredericton Police Force,
Barry McKnight; former Staff Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the
New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg,
and, retired Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.
In the
circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my personal capacity and
my past and present relationship with many potential witnesses and/or potential
parties to the litigation, I am of the view there would be a reasonable
apprehension of bias should I hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s
dissenting judgment in Committee for
Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, [1978] 1 SCR 369
at p 394 for the applicable test regarding allegations of bias. In the
circumstances, although neither party has requested I recuse myself, I consider
it appropriate that I do so.
AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of the Court schedule another date for the
hearing of the motion. There is no order
as to costs.
“B. Richard Bell”
No comments:
Post a Comment