AG David Lametti could be SNC-Lavalin's last hope to avoid prosecution
Engineering firm lost its bid for judicial review of federal prosecutor's decision
Mark Gollom · CBC News ·
If
the corruption and fraud case against SNC-Lavalin proceeds to trial,
then David Lametti may be the only person in Canada who can save the
Montreal-based engineering firm from criminal prosecution. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
If
the corruption and fraud case against SNC-Lavalin proceeds to trial,
then David Lametti may be the only person in Canada who can save the
Montreal-based engineering firm from criminal prosecution.
As
attorney general, Lametti has the power to decide whether the company
should be able to access a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which
would stay those criminal proceedings.
And after losing its bid on
Friday for a judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecution's
decision to proceed with criminal prosecution of the company on
corruption charges instead of agreeing to a DPA, the company's attention
will now focus on Lametti.
The issue
of SNC-Lavalin and a DPA is at the centre of the current Liberal
government political scandal. Lametti's predecessor Jody Wilson-Raybould
said that when she was attorney general, she had closed the book on
that option, refusing to overrule Director of Public Prosecutions
Kathleen Roussel's decision that a DPA wouldn't be appropriate in
SNC-Lavalin's case.
Lametti still considering options
However
Lametti, despite the ongoing controversy, has indicated he hasn't ruled
out that option. But he also hasn't indicated when a decision may come,
or whether he is open to reconsider the case, something that had been
suggested to Wilson-Raybould by officials in the PMO.
SNC-Lavalin
faces charges of fraud and corruption in connection with nearly $48
million in payments made to Libyan government officials between 2001 and
2011. (CBC)
On Friday, federal Judge
Catherine Kane ruled against SNC-Lavalin's bid to seek a DPA and avoid
criminal proceedings, writing that "prosecutorial discretion is not
subject to judicial review, except for abuse of power."
SNC-Lavalin faces
charges of fraud and corruption in connection with millions of dollars
of payments made to Libyan government officials between 2001 and 2011.
The case is currently in the preliminary hearing stage. A judge is
expected to rule soon on whether it should proceed to trial.
If
that were to happen, the only path to avoid prosecution would be
through Lametti, who as attorney general oversees the director of public
prosecutions. He can issue directives on any specific prosecution,
meaning he could direct federal prosecutors to negotiate a deferred
prosecution agreement.
These agreements allow companies accused
of certain economic offences — such as bribery, fraud
and corruption — to be spared criminal charges.Instead, they can could
admit wrongdoing and pay a financial penalty.
Concern over jobs
In
the case of SNC-Lavalin, which employs nearly 9,000 Canadians across
the country, the concern has been that a successful criminal prosecution
against the company could lead to it being banned from bidding on
federal contracts for 10 years. That could cost many jobs
and damage the economy, particularly in Quebec.
It's not
known why Roussel turned down SNC-Lavalin's request for a DPA. A letter
to the company only said that after a "detailed review of all the
material submitted," it was determined that a "remediation agreement is
not appropriate in this case."
There are a number of factors that Lametti might consider when deciding whether SNC-Lavalin qualifies for a DPA. Those include:
The nature and gravity of the act and its impact on any victim.
Whether the company has taken disciplinary action.
Whether the organization has made reparations.
During
her testimony at the Commons justice committee, which is probing the
SNC-Lavalin scandal, Wilson-Raybould said, despite her decision, and
after insisting that the file was closed, she was pressured
inappropriately by senior government officials, including Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau, to intervene in the case.
'Fresh eyes'
Trudeau has
denied any inappropriate pressure. He also said that it's his belief
that when it comes making a decision on a DPA, that can be taken by the
attorney general up until the very last minute of a trial.
Trudeau's
former principal secretary Gerald Butts, in his testimony before the
justice committee, said according to the briefings he had received, the
attorney general was obligated to bring "fresh eyes" every time new
evidence arose, up until a verdict on the case is rendered.
Craig
Martin Scott, a York University law professor, agreed that there is
nothing to preclude the attorney general from intervening at any point,
up until the verdict. But it may be impractical for the new attorney
general, or any attorney general, to keep abreast of a case for that
period of time, he said.
"To say that the AG has the same kind of
active duty to constantly be keeping in mind a file in order to
determine [do they] intervene with the prosecutors, that just doesn't
follow.
"No system can work with the AG constantly being on watch over multiple files as to whether they're going to intervene."
Suggestions
by Trudeau and Butts that the file remains open just invited the kind
of pressure alleged by Wilson-Raybould, he said.
"It means that
people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the
government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and
it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same
continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors."
'Almost condescending'
Butts
also testified that senior government officials raised the idea with
Wilson-Raybould to seek external legal advice on the
matter, suggesting seeking out someone like former Supreme
Court Justice Beverley McLaughlin.
"What exactly did they think
they were going to do?" said Scott. "Get some kind of named jurist to
come in and tutor the AG and her legal team? That felt really almost
condescending."
Jody
Wilson-Raybould testified that when she was attorney general, she was
pressured by top government officials, including the prime minister, to
step in and resolve the corruption and fraud case against SNC-Lavalin
Group. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
University
of British Columbia assistant professor Andrew Martin, who specializes
in legal ethics, said that was just a way of the government saying: "I'm
going to bug you, until you say what I want."
"The only reason to suggest to get an outside opinion is that she's wrong."
Richard
Leblanc, professor of governance, law and ethics at York University,
told CBC's Salimah Shivji, that the government should stop emphasizing
potential job losses as a reason for a DPA, and instead focus on how
SNC-Lavalin has changed.
"That obsession with the jobs
argument is not the path forward. The path forward is to focus on the
reforms that have been undertaken and focus on that as opposed to
partisan interests."
About the Author
Mark Gollom
Reporter
Mark Gollom is a Toronto-based reporter with CBC News. He covers Canadian and U.S. politics and current affairs.
SNC-LAVALIN GROUP INC. et al. v. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
Proceeding Category :
Applications
Nature :
S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Type of Action :
Non-Action
79 records found for court number
T-1843-18
Doc
Date Filed
Office
Recorded Entry Summary
-
2019-03-08
Ottawa
Acknowledgment of Receipt received from parties (via e-mail) with respect to
Doc. No. 32 + 33 placed on file on 08-MAR-2019
33
2019-03-08
Ottawa
Traduction certifiée conforme (texte français) Ordonnance et Motifs rendus
le 08-MAR-2019 par Madame le juge Kane déposée le 08-MAR-2019 en vertu de
l'article 20 de la Loi sur les langues officielles Certificat de la traduction
de l'ordonnance inscrit(e) dans le livre J. & O., volume 1401 page(s) 475 -
475 et placé au dossier.
32
2019-03-08
Ottawa
Reasons (Order and Reasons) dated 08-MAR-2019 rendered by The Honourable
Madam Justice Kane Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's
decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 11 Result: "THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The Application for Judicial Review is struck without leave to amend. 2. The
Respondent shall have its costs on this motion." Filed on 08-MAR-2019 copies
sent to parties Final Decision Certificate of Order entered in J. & O. Book,
volume 1401 page(s) 474 - 474
-
2019-03-01
Ottawa
Request for Copy of Audio Recording of a Federal Court Hearing from Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation received on 01-MAR-2019
-
2019-02-12
Montréal
Lettre de la part de Me Jean-Sébastien Danis en date du 12-FEV-2019
demandant copie de ceratins documents à la Cour. reçue le 12-FEV-2019
-
2019-02-07
Montréal
Lettre envoyée du greffe le 07-FEV-2019 à Johanne Lopez suite à la directive
de Mme la juge Kane et accusé de reception du CD de l' audition du 1er février
2019. Copie placée au dossier Copie placée au dossier.
-
2019-02-06
Montréal
Written directions received from the Court: Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary
dated 06-FEB-2019 directing that "FURTHER to the case management conference held
on February 1, 2019, the parties shall not be required to take any steps in this
proceeding until this Court has released its ruling on the Respondent's motion
to strike the Application. If, as a result of the Court's ruling, this matter is
to move forward, the parties shall be required to prepare and submit to the
Court a draft timetable for the next steps to be completed in this proceeding
and leading up to a hearing (...) The parties shall be dispensed from filing a
requisition under Rule 314 of the Federal Courts Rules upon filing of the letter
requesting a hearing date (...)" placed on file on 06-FEB-2019 Confirmed in
writing to the party(ies)
-
2019-02-05
Montréal
Demande de la part Johanne Lopez, Davies Ward Philips & Vineberg Demande
de copie d'un enregistrement audio-numérique de la Cour fédérale le 1 février
2018 avec madame la juge Kane à Montréal. placée au dossier le
05-FEV-2019
-
2019-02-01
Montréal
Montréal 01-FEB-2019 BEFORE Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary Language: E
Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: The Court will
issue an order shortly, based on the discussions held during the present case
management conference. held by way of Conference Call Duration per day:
01-FEB-2019 from 15:30 to 16:35 Courtroom : Courtroom 241 - Montréal Court
Registrar: Sonya Brault Total Duration: 1h 5min Appearances: Mr William
McNamara/ Mr Grant Worden/ Ms Emma Loignon-Giroux 416-865-7380/ 416-868-5700/
514-868-5700 representing the Applicants Mr Andrew J. Lenz/ Mr David Migicovsky
613-566-2837/ 613-566-2749 representing the Respondents Comments: Further to the
instructions of the Court (Madam Prothonotary Alexandra Steele), this case
management conference was not recorded using the SEAN/DARS or TASCAM audio
recording units. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1016 page(s) 307 - 311
Abstract of Hearing placed on file
-
2019-02-01
Montréal
Montréal 01-FEB-2019 BEFORE The Honourable Madam Justice Kane Language: E
Before the Court: Motion Doc. No. 11 on behalf of Respondent to strike the
Applicants' Notice of Application Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held in
Court Senior Usher: Benoît Mondion Duration per day: 01-FEB-2019 from 09:31 to
15:08 Courtroom : Courtroom 334 - Montréal Court Registrar: Rola Chedid Total
Duration: 5h37min Appearances: Messrs. William McNamara and Grant Worden and Ms.
Emma Loignon-Giroux 514.868.5622; 514.865.7698; 514.868.5614 representing
Applicants Messrs. David Migicovsky and Andrew Lenz 613.566.2833; 613.566.2842
representing Respondent Comments: Digital Audio Recording System used Z006681
Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1016 page(s) 22 - 29 Abstract of Hearing
placed on file
-
2019-02-01
Montréal
Annotated Supplementary Book of Authorities on behalf of the Applicants with
respect to the Respondent's Motion document 11 one copy for the Court (Kane,
J.), one copy stored in Ottawa received at hearing on 01-FEB-2019
-
2019-02-01
Montréal
Annotated Supplementary Book of Authorities, on behalf of the Respondent,
with respect to her Motion document 11. One copy to the Court (Kane, J.) one
copy stored in Ottawa received at hearing on 01-FEB-2019
-
2019-01-31
Montréal
Supplementary Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of the
Applicants with proof of service upon all parties on 31-JAN-2019 received on
31-JAN-2019 Sent directly to Presiding Judge
-
2019-01-31
Montréal
Supplementary Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of Respondent
with proof of service upon all parties on 31-JAN-2019 received on 31-JAN-2019
Sent directly to Presiding Judge
-
2019-01-30
Montréal
Letter from Mr William McNamara, Counsel for the Applicants, dated
30-JAN-2019 writing further to the Court's Direction dated January 18, 2019 and
asking that the present letter be brought to the attention of Madam Prothonotary
Alexandra Steele (...) indicating that Counsel for the Applicants have provided
Counsel for the Respondent with a draft timetable for their comments (...)
indicating that the parties appear to disagree over scheduling discussions with
regard to the steps going ahead on the merits in this matter (...); with proof
of service upon all parties on 30-JAN-2019 received on 30-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-25
Toronto
Memorandum to file from Toronto dated 25-JAN-2019 Responding Record doc 30,
Book of Authorities doc id 62 copies distributed as follows: Original and
Judge's copy to OTT, Local office copy sent to MTL placed on file.
31
2019-01-25
Toronto
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of W. Grant Worden confirming
service of doc 30, Book of Authorities upon Respondent by email on consent on
25-JAN-2019 filed on 25-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-25
Toronto
Book of Authorities consisting of 2 volume(s) on behalf of Applicant
received on 25-JAN-2019
30
2019-01-25
Toronto
Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 11 containing the following
original document(s): 29 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Applicant
filed on 25-JAN-2019
29
2019-01-25
Toronto
Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of
Applicant concerning Motion Doc. No. 11 filed on 25-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-25
Montréal
Covering letter from Mr Grant Worden, Counsel for the Applicants, dated
22-JAN-2019 concerning Doc. Nos. 27 28 placed on file on 25-JAN-2019
28
2019-01-22
Montréal
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of W. Grant Worden confirming
service of the PUBLIC REDACTED Version of the Applicants' Motion Record for a
Confidentiality order (2 Volumes) (Doc.# 27) upon Counsel for the Respondents by
email (with Consent - Doc.# 20) on 22-JAN-2019 filed on 22-JAN-2019
27
2019-01-22
Montréal
Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 23 24 25 26
Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of the Applicants (PUBLIC - REDACTED
Version) filed on 22-JAN-2019
26
2019-01-22
Montréal
Written Representations (PUBLIC - REDACTED) contained within a Motion Record
on behalf of the Applicants concerning Motion Doc. No. 23 filed on
22-JAN-2019
25
2019-01-22
Montréal
Affidavit of Affidavit of Diane Zimmerman (PUBLIC - REDACTED Version) sworn
on 18-JAN-2019 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the Applicants in
support of Motion Doc. No. 23 with Exhibits "A" to "D"; filed on
22-JAN-2019
24
2019-01-22
Montréal
Affidavit of Erik Ryan (PUBLIC - REDACTED Version) sworn on 18-JAN-2019
contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the Applicants in support of
Motion Doc. No. 23 with Exhibits "A" to "N"; filed on 22-JAN-2019
23
2019-01-22
Montréal
Notice of Motion (PUBLIC - REDACTED Version) contained within a Motion
Record on behalf of the Applicants returnable (but no hearing date indicated at
this time) for an Order that the Respondent's R.318 material (transmitted), be
maintained under confidential seal pursuant to Rule 151 of the Federal Courts
Rules ("Rules") until such time as the confidential seal is either removed or
varied by direction or order of this Court or if the material otherwise becomes
publicly available; that the Affidavit of Erik Ryan sworn on January 18, 2019,
also be kept under confidential pursuant to R.151; fo an order that this motion
be heard in camera pursuant to Rule 29(2) - in the alternative, for an order
that the evidence and submissions referring to the Respondent's R.318 material
be heard in camera; costs of this motion; (...); Mr William McNamara, Tel.:
514-868-5622/ 416-865-7988 filed on 22-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-18
Montréal
Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties with respect to the
Court's Direction issued on January 18, 2019; placed on file on
18-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-18
Montréal
Written directions received from the Court: Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary
dated 18-JAN-2019 directing that " (...) the parties shall submit to the Court a
proposed agenda for the next case management conference, and indicate whether a
proposed step or issue is contested, by no later than January 30, 2019." placed
on file on 18-JAN-2019 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
-
2019-01-18
Montréal
Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties with respect to the
Court Order rendered on January 18, 2019 (Doc.# 22) placed on file on
18-JAN-2019
22
2019-01-18
Montréal
Order dated 18-JAN-2019 rendered by Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary Matter
considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to
Order dated 18-DEC-2018 Result: " (...) THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The
Applicants are permitted to serve and file, by no later than January 18, 2019, a
confidential version of their affidavit, exhibits and written representations,
which shall form part of their motion record in support of a motion for a
confidentiality order made pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Order of December 18,
2018. 2. The Registry is directed to accept for filing the motion record of the
Applicants containing documents under seal. 3. Upon filing by the Applicants of
a motion for a confidentiality order pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Order, the
Registry shall further maintain under confidential seal the material transmitted
by the Director of Public Prosecutions on January 7, 2019 pursuant to Rule 318
and shall not make it publicly available until such time as the confidential
seal is either removed or varied by direction or order of this Court. The last
part of paragraph 2c) of the Order of December 18, 2018 shall apply in the
absence of filing of such a motion by the Applicants. 4. The Applicants shall,
by no later than January 22, 2019, serve and file a public version of their
affidavit, exhibits and written submissions relating to their motion for a
confidentiality order, from which only the information required to be treated as
confidential shall have been redacted. 5. The timetable provided in paragraphs 5
and 6 of the Order of December 18, 2018 for the service of Affidavits under
Rules 306 and 307 is stayed pending the Court's further order or directions. 6.
All other applicable provisions of the Order of December 18, 2018 shall remain
in effect." Filed on 18-JAN-2019 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1397
page(s) 252 - 254 Interlocutory Decision
21
2019-01-18
Toronto
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of W.Grant Worden confirming
service of Applicants' Motion Record for a Confidentiality Order (2 volumes)
(Returnable February 1, 2019) and Book of Authorities upon Respondent by email
(electronic service on consent) on 18-JAN-2019 filed on 18-JAN-2019
20
2019-01-18
Toronto
Consent on behalf of Respondent to Electronic Service of all documents that
does not require to be served personally... filed on 18-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-18
Toronto
Book of Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of Applicant
received on 18-JAN-2019 Sent directly to Presiding Judge
19
2019-01-18
Toronto
Sealed envelope pursuant to Court Order dated January 18, 2019 and Rule 151
of the Federal Courts Rules on behalf of Applicant purporting to contain Notice
of Motion (Doc 18), two supporting affidavits and Written Representations (2
volume set) Filed on 18-JAN-2019
18
2019-01-18
Toronto
Confidential Notice of Motion (contained in sealed envelope) contained
within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable at Special Sitting in
Montréal on 01-FEB-2019 to begin at 09:30 for an Order for Confidentiality
pursuant to Rule 151 of the Federal Courts Rules and such further relief filed
on 18-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-18
Montréal
Montréal 18-JAN-2019 BEFORE Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary Language: E
Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: The Court (Madam
Prothonotary Alexandra Steele), will issue an order shortly, pursuant to the
issues discussed during the present case management conference (CMC). held by
way of Conference Call Duration per day: 18-JAN-2019 from 11:03 to 12:13
Courtroom : Courtroom 241 - Montréal Court Registrar: Sonya Brault Total
Duration: 1h 10min Appearances: Mr William McNamara 416-865-7988 representing
the Applicants Mr Grant Worden 416-865-7698 representing the Applicants Ms Emma
Loignon-Giroux 514-868-5614 representing the Applicants Mr Andrew J. Lenz
613-566-2842 representing Respondent Mr David Migicovsky 613-566-2833
representing Respondent Comments: Further to the instructions of the Court, this
Case Management Conference was not recorded using the SEAN/DARS or TASCAM audio
recording units. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1015 page(s) 126 - 128
Abstract of Hearing placed on file
-
2019-01-17
Montréal
Written directions received from the Court: Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary
dated 17-JAN-2019 directing that "The Court is in receipt of the Applicant's
request that the case management conference be held in camera. The Court fails
to see what confidential information, if any, will be disclosed during the case
management conference. This conference was convened on the basis that the
parties wanted to address scheduling issues surrounding the request for
directions under Rule 318(3). The Applicant has also indicated it intends to
imminently file its motion under Rules 151 and 152 and seeks directions as to
sealing its affidavit and written submissions. These issues can also be
addressed without disclosure of the actual contents of the documents. If the
Court determines during the case management conference that there is a need for
confidentiality measures, it will take the appropriate measures at that time.
The Applicant's request for an in camera hearing is consequently denied.
Arrangements for the case management conference have been made to ensure the
best use of the Court's limited resources, as well as the resources of the
parties, and in fairness to both parties. The Applicant's request to attend in
person is also denied." placed on file on 17-JAN-2019 Confirmed in writing to
the party(ies)
-
2019-01-17
Montréal
Letter from Mr Grant Worden, Counsel for the Applicants, dated 16-JAN-2019
asking that this letter be brought to the attention of Madam Prothonotary
Alexandra Steele and seeking directions regarding the filing of the Applicants'
motion pursuant to RUles 151/152 (FCR) to maintain the documents that the
Respondent transmitted to the Court Registry on January 7, 2019 pursuant to Rule
318, filed under seal (...); with proof of service upon all parties on
17-JAN-2019 received on 17-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-17
Montréal
Letter from Mr Andrew J. Lenz, Counsel for the Respondent, dated 17-JAN-2019
writing further to the Court's Direction dated January 16, 2019 and asking that
this letter and enclosures be brought to the attention of Madam Prothonotary
Alexandra Steele (...) (Enclosed are the following: a copy of the Motion Record
of the Respondent, a copy of correspondence to Counsel for the Applicants, dated
January 15, 2019 and a copy of case law: Forner v. PIPSC, 2016 FCA 35); with
proof of service upon all parties on 17-JAN-2019 received on
17-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-16
Montréal
Letter sent by Registry on 16-JAN-2019 to all parties confirming that a Case
Management Conference will take place on Friday, January 18, 2019, at 11:00 a.m.
(EST), by way of telephone conference and providing the parties with the call-in
information; (Sent by both email and fax); Copy placed on file.
-
2019-01-16
Montréal
Oral directions received from the Court: Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary
dated 16-JAN-2019 directing that The Court is in receipt of the letters from
counsel for the Applicant and from counsel for the Respondent received on
January 15, 2019. The Court understands that the parties have been unable to
resolve objections made under Rule 318(2) and that there is a dispute over the
procedure to be suggested to the Court to resolve the objections. At the request
of the parties, the Court schedules a case management conference to be held by
teleconference on January 17, 2019 at 1:00 pm (ET) to address this issue. The
Court has the benefit of the Applicant's suggested procedure for making
submissions on the objections, but not the Respondent's suggested procedure.
Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to provide the Court with the procedure
it suggests in advance of the case management conference, and in any event by no
later than 10:00 am on January 17, 2019. placed on file on 16-JAN-2019 Confirmed
in writing to the party(ies)
-
2019-01-15
Montréal
Letter from Applicant dated 15-JAN-2019 writing further to Me Lenz's letter
of today's date and requesting a case management conference at the earliest
convenience of the Court. received on 15-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-15
Montréal
Letter from Respondent dated 15-JAN-2019 in response to letter from
Applicants dated January 14, 2019, and requesting a case managment conference.
received on 15-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-15
Montréal
Letter from Applicant dated 14-JAN-2019 concerning the objection to R.317
and proposing that this motion be heard at on February 1, 2019 after the
conclusion of the hearing of its motion to strike. received on
15-JAN-2019
17
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Andrew Lenz confirming
service of Sealed Envelope purporting to contain the Record of Documentation of
the Director of Public Prosecutions upon Applicants by email on 08-JAN-2019
filed on 08-JAN-2019
16
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Andrew Lenz confirming
service of Respondent's Motion Record upon Applicants by email on 08-JAN-2019
filed on 08-JAN-2019
15
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Consent on behalf of Applicants to the electronic service of all documents
in the application that are not required to be served personally. filed on
08-JAN-2019
14
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Sealed Envelope purporting to contain the Record of Documentation of the
Director of Public Prosecution (pursuant to Order of this Court dated December
18, 2018) filed on 08-JAN-2019
-
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Book of Authorities (Appendix B) consisting of 2 volume(s) on behalf of
Respondent received on 08-JAN-2019 Sent directly to Presiding Judge
13
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 11 12 Number of
copies received: 3 on behalf of Respondent filed on 08-JAN-2019
12
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Memorandum of Fact and Law with Appendix A (1 volume) contained within a
Motion Record on behalf of Respondent filed on 08-JAN-2019 1 judges' copies Sent
directly to Presiding Judge
11
2019-01-08
Ottawa
Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent
returnable at Special Sitting in Montréal on 01-FEB-2019 to begin at 09:30 for
an Order that the Applicant's application be struck without leave to amend
pursuant to Rule 359 of the Federal Courts Rules; 2. If this motion is
successful in whole or in part, an award of costs in favour of the Respondent.
filed on 08-JAN-2019
-
2018-12-18
Montréal
Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties with respect to Order
rendered on December 18, 2018 placed on file on 18-DEC-2018
10
2018-12-18
Montréal
Order dated 18-DEC-2018 rendered by Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary Matter
considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Case
Management Conference Result: scheduling Order see joint document for details
Filed on 18-DEC-2018 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume
1395 page(s) 231 - 234 Interlocutory Decision
-
2018-12-17
Montréal
Montréal 17-DEC-2018 BEFORE Alexandra Steele, Prothonotary Language: E
Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: The Court will
issue a decision shortly. held by way of Conference Call Duration per day:
17-DEC-2018 from 14:04 to 15:14 Courtroom : Courtroom 241 - Montréal Court
Registrar: Sonya Brault Total Duration: 1h10min Appearances: Mr William McNamara
416-868-7988 representing the Applicants Mr Grant Worden 416-868-7988
representing the Applicants Ms Emma Loignon-Leroux 514-868-5600 representing the
Applicants Mr Andrew J.F. Lenz 613-566-2833 representing the Respondents Mr
David Migicovsky 613-566-2833 representing the Respondents Comments: Further to
the instructions of the Court (Madam Prothonotary Alexandra Steele), this case
management conference was not recorded using the SEAN/ DARS or TASCAM audio
recording units. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1013 page(s) 410 - 412
Abstract of Hearing placed on file
-
2018-12-17
Montréal
Letter from Mr Andrew J.F.Lenz, Counsel for the Respondents, dated
17-DEC-2018 writing in response to the letter from the Applicants' Counsel dated
December 5 and 14, 2018 and asking for this letter to be brought to the
attention of Madam Prothonotary Alexandra Steele, for the Case Management
Conference to be held on Monday, December 17, 2018 (...) and enclosing several
case law decisions (...); received on 17-DEC-2018
-
2018-12-17
Montréal
Letter from Mr William McNamara, Counsel for the Applicants, dated
14-DEC-2018 asking for this letter to be brought to the attention of Madam
Prothonotary Alexandra Steele, for the Case Management Conference to be held on
Monday, December 17, 2018 (...) the Applicants propose the schedule set out
(therein) and will be seeking a direction that all interlocutory motion,
including the Respondent's proposed motion to strike, be heard by the
Application Judge at the outset of the Application hearing, which is proposed to
take place in May (...) the Respondent has advised that it opposes the proposed
scehdule on the basis that it does not provide for an interlocutory motion to
strike, the Respondent has not provided an alternate schedule (...)
Additionally, by way of background, the Applicants recommend several article
published this week which underscore the urgent nature of this important
application, for the Court (hyperlinks to articles provided therein, as well as
hard copies in attachment) (...); received on 17-DEC-2018
-
2018-12-06
Montréal
Letter from Respondent dated 06-DEC-2018 In response to the Applicant's
letter dated 5-DEC-2018 "Please be advised that we will not be engaging in any
further litigation by letter. Any submissions that we have to make will be made
at the case conference (...)" received on 06-DEC-2018
-
2018-12-06
Montréal
Letter from Applicant dated 05-DEC-2018 "(...) For the reasons set out in
our November 30th letter to the Court, it is critical that this application for
judiciail review be heard and determined expeditiously. (...)" received on
06-DEC-2018
-
2018-12-05
Montréal
Letter from Respondent dated 05-DEC-2018 indicating that the Respondents are
not available for a CMC on 10-DEC-2018 received on 05-DEC-2018
-
2018-12-03
Montréal
Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 03-DEC-2018 re: request
for CMC (Id.17)
-
2018-12-03
Montréal
Letter from Plaintiff dated 30-NOV-2018 requesting Prothonotary Steele to
schedule a case management conference during the week of December 10, 2018.
received on 03-DEC-2018
-
2018-11-27
Ottawa
Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties (by fax) with respect
to doc 9 placed on file on 27-NOV-2018
9
2018-11-27
Ottawa
Order dated 27-NOV-2018 rendered by Chief Justice Crampton Matter considered
without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Order dated
07-NOV-2018 Result: IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Rule 383 that Prothonotary
Alexandra Steele is assigned as Case Management Judge in this matter. Filed on
27-NOV-2018 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1393
page(s) 175 - 175 Interlocutory Decision
-
2018-11-26
Ottawa
Letter from Applicant dated 26-NOV-2018 requesting that a Case Management
Judge be appointed as soon as possible in order to move forward with this
Application -scanned to the Judicial Administrator- received on
26-NOV-2018
8
2018-11-21
Ottawa
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of David Migicovsky confirming
service of Doc. No.6 upon Applicant by telecopier on 20-NOV-2018 filed on
21-NOV-2018
7
2018-11-21
Ottawa
Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of David Migicovsky confirming
service of doc.no.6 upon previous Solicitor by telecopier on 20-NOV-2018 filed
on 21-NOV-2018
6
2018-11-21
Ottawa
Notice of change of solicitor on behalf of Respondent filed on
21-NOV-2018
-
2018-11-07
Ottawa
Confirmation of transmittal receipt via facsimile received from all parties
with respect to doc. #5 placed on file on 07-NOV-2018
-
2018-11-07
Ottawa
Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 07-NOV-2018 re: File sent
to TrialJA for assignment of CMJ (see doc. #5)
5
2018-11-07
Ottawa
Order dated 07-NOV-2018 rendered by Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary Matter
considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to
Letter from Applicant dated 02-NOV-2018 re: request for case management Result:
granted THIS COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application shall continue as a specially
case managed proceeding. 2. The application is hereby referred to the Chief
Justice for designation of a Case Management Judge. 3. The parties shall, within
10 days of the date of the appointment of a Case Management Judge, provide dates
and times of mutual availability for a case management conference in the event
such conference is deemed to be necessary by the Case Management Judge. Filed on
07-NOV-2018 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered
in J. & O. Book, volume 1390 page(s) 436 - 437 Interlocutory Decision
-
2018-11-06
Ottawa
Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 06-NOV-2018 re:
Applicant's request to have this matter case managed
-
2018-11-05
Ottawa
Letter from Respondent dated 05-NOV-2018 "I am counsel for the
Respondent...We are in receipt of Mr. McNamara's letter of November 2,
2018...the DPP does not necessarily agree with the rationale for the appointment
as set out in the letter. It is premature to make any decision relating to an
abridged timetable...Finally, please note that the DPP is in the process of
retaining external counsel and a Notice of change of solicitor will be filed
shorlty..." received on 05-NOV-2018
-
2018-11-02
Ottawa
Letter from Applicant dated 02-NOV-2018 requesting that a Case Management
Judge be assigned to this matter. received on 02-NOV-2018
4
2018-10-29
Ottawa
Affidavit of service of Layla Abbar sworn on 29-OCT-2018 on behalf of
Respondent confirming service of Notice of Appearance upon Applicant by
telecopier on 26-OCT-2018 filed on 29-OCT-2018
3
2018-10-25
Ottawa
Notice of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 25-OCT-2018
2
2018-10-25
Ottawa
Affidavit of service of Gianni Donatucci sworn on 24-OCT-2018 on behalf of
Applicant confirming service of Notice of Application upon Respondent, the
Director of Public Prosecutions by personal service on 19-OCT-2018 filed on
25-OCT-2018
1
2018-10-19
Montréal
Notice of application with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on
19-OCT-2018 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the
Regional Office of the Department of Justice Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes
The last database update occurred on 2019-03-10 10:27
David Raymond Amos@DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos@Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
Methinks this lawyer is very interesting too bad so sad that he had no
time to talk to me today Everybody knows I can help him with his woes
with the Taxman N'esy Pas?
Stephen Ralph LeDrew (born 1953) is a Toronto-based lawyer and broadcaster. He served as President of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1998 to 2003, and was a Mayor of Toronto candidate in the 2006 municipal election. He hosted LeDrew Live on CP24 and also co-hosted CP24 Live at Noon as well as being the news station's political analyst until he was fired in December 2017 after seven years with the station.[1]
As
a lawyer, LeDrew served as the Executive Assistant to the Solicitor
General of Canada, Government Affairs Counsel for Manulife, and Director
of Operations in the Prime Minister's Office. After serving in
government, he practised administrative law in the private sector for
over 25 years.
Political career
LeDrew
was elected president of the Liberal Party of Canada in March 1998,
then re-elected in March 2000, serving until November 2003. Occasionally
outspoken, he famously derided the Chrétien government's plan to severely limit corporate donations to political parties as being as "dumb as a bag of hammers".[2]
On September 28, 2006, immediately prior to nomination cut-off
date, LeDrew announced his candidacy for Mayor of Toronto in that year's
municipal election against incumbent David Miller, centre-right challenger Jane Pitfield
and a host of fringe candidates. Although he received considerable
media coverage and was invited to participate in election debates with
Miller and Pitfield, LeDrew finished a distant third with only 1.3% of
the vote.
Broadcasting
From 2007 until 2009, LeDrew co-hosted a talk show with Michael Coren on CFRB 1010 in Toronto titled Two Bald Guys With Strong Opinions. In January 2009, LeDrew began co-hosting a weekday noon news programme with Ann Rohmer on CP24 tiled Live at Noon
working there as a political analyst. Due to these television
commitments, LeDrew quit his CFRB 1010 show on March 25, 2009. He was
fired from CP24 in December 2017 for violating the non-competition
clause of his contract by appearing on Fox News Channel.[1]
Personal
In
2005, LeDrew was forced to declare personal bankruptcy by his sole
creditor, the federal government. At that time LeDrew claimed this
action against him was incited by his stand against Jean Chrétien's
efforts to remain as party leader without a leadership review vote, contrary to the constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada. LeDrew owed C$364,140
in back taxes, which he had been in the process of paying down. The
court ordered him to pay 74% of this amount, even though LeDrew had
earlier offered to pay 100% of his arrears over time; the government had
rejected this offer. The judge on the case noted that LeDrew placed
priority on personal expenses rather than his tax obligations.[3]
LeDrew stated in reply at the time that his children and their needs
came first, and he would not have done anything differently. LeDrew is a
divorced father of four children.
Stephen LeDrew is past president of the National Club in Toronto.
Stephen
LeDrew was so sure he would be back on his popular CP24 Live at Noon
show he had two special guests lined up for the day of his return
following a one-week suspension.
TTC boss Andy Byford and former
foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay were booked. LeDrew had his
coloured glasses and bow tie picked out.
The comeback didn’t
happen. Instead, the former Toronto mayoral candidate said he was called
into an office where “people were snarling at me.” It turns out the
suspension for his appearance on Tucker Carlson’s FOX News program is
not the only punishment.
“I was fired,” said LeDrew. “Fired for cause for violating our competition clause. Merry Christmas.”
Stephen LeDrew speaks to the Toronto Sun editorial board. (Stan Behal/Toronto Sun)Stan Behal /
Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network The one-time Liberal Party of Canada’s president found
himself in trouble for a Dec. 1 appearance on Carlson’s show where he
defended a 15-letter acronym LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP being used in schools to
protect against bullying.
LeDrew defended it to a skeptical
Carlson but, he said, Bell Media decided to admonish him for “going on a
competitor’s show without prior permission.”
LeDrew, a lawyer, said he was asked to sign a letter of apology that would allow him back on the air Dec. 8.
“I
was worried the wording of the letter would not let me talk to law
society events or the kids at Ryerson, but I was going to sign it
because I wanted to get back on,” he said.
But after pushing his comeback date to Dec. 11, he was kept from the studio when he arrived.
“I
was later ushered out and not allowed to go and get my coat,” he said.
“I guess I shouldn’t have giggled when CTV news told me that Fox was its
competition.”
LeDrew, who wished he could have said goodbye to
his “terrific” colleagues, said he was also told he should not have done
media interviews following his suspension.
Bell has not commented other than to say “Stephen LeDrew is no longer with Bell Media.”
It
is disappointing because as a viewer and occasional guest, I think
Stephen was very good at his job. He did it with professionalism, style
and flare for seven years.
Tucker Carlson speaks onstage at IGNITION: Future of Media at Time
Warner Center on November 29, 2017 in New York City. (Photo by Roy
Rochlin/Getty Images)
If there was a story in Toronto, LeDrew was the place on TV
where viewers and newsmakers would go. That he could be dismissed over
this seems over the top. How are characters and free thinkers to work in
this kind of environment? TV and radio needs to be edgy and
controversial instead of rigid and politically correct.
LeDrew
doesn’t believe this was because of his “fish or fowl, frick of frack”
answer to explaining the definition of what a “two spirited” person is
but more about appearing without clearance and “that I talked with the
press.”
Ironic, he was talking about free speech on the show.
“They
just want everybody under their thumb,” said LeDrew. “I am OK. It just
means I will be able to spend more time with my family over the
holidays.”
But after that, LeDrew said he will be available to do commentary.
“This is a serious time in our country,” he said. “I will still talk about important issues.”
Just not on CP24.
Denis Jasmin, CPA, CA
Vice-President, Investor Relations
455 René-Lévesque Blvd. West
Montreal, Quebec
Canada, H2Z 1Z3
+1 514-393-8000 ext. 57553
---------- Original message ----------
From: Iqra.Khalid@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 19:35:58 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE Federal Court File No T-1557-15,
SNC-Lavalin, Trudeau and the OECD etc pursuant to my calls today here
is the email I promised to send
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for contacting the office of MP Iqra Khalid. Your email is
very important to us and we will respond to you as soon as possible.
If your matter is urgent, please call our office at 905-820-8814 for
Mississauga, or 613-995-7321, for Ottawa.
If your email is pertaining to any immigration matter or a service
Canada issue, our Community Office will be very happy to assist you.
Please feel free to walk in the office during the weekdays from 10:00
AM to 5:00 PM (we break for lunch from 1-2 PM).
The Community Office address for the residents of Mississauga - Erin
Mills is as follows :
Community Office of Iqra Khalid, MP
3100 Ridgeway Drive
Suite 35
Mississauga, Ontario
L5L 5M5
Phone : 9058208814
Fax : 9058204068
Contact the Committee
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Canada
E-mail: JUST@parl.gc.ca
Fax: 613-947-3089
Website: ourcommons.ca/JUST-e
Committee Staff
Marc-Olivier Girard, Clerk of the Committee
613-996-1553
Vanessa Robillard, Committee Assistant
Chloé Forget, Analyst
Library of Parliament
Lyne Casavant, Analyst
Library of Parliament
---------- Original message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date:
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:24:19 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE SNC-Lavalin
Trudeau and the OECD Attn Don
Houle, Denis Jasmin, William McNamara and
Stephen LeDrew pursuant to
my calls you will find this email at the bottom of
my blog about you
dudes
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank
you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament
for Vancouver Granville.
This message is to acknowledge that we are in
receipt of your email.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of
correspondence, there
may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
that your
message will be carefully reviewed.
To help us address your
concerns more quickly, please include within
the body of your email your full
name, address, and postal code.
Thank
you
-------------------
Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody
Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.
Le pr?sent message
vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une
augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera
examin? attentivement.
Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations
plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom
complet,
votre adresse et votre code
postal.
Merci
---------- Original message
----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:24:20 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE SNC-Lavalin
Trudeau and the OECD Attn Don
Houle, Denis Jasmin, William McNamara and
Stephen LeDrew pursuant to
my calls you will find this email at the bottom of
my blog about you
dudes
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank
you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to
newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our
Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com
SNC-Lavalin
lawyer Iacobucci urged to resign as Trudeau's Trans Mountain envoy
By
Alastair Sharp in News, Energy, Politics | March 5th 2019
'Not a
shrinking violet'
The UBCIC's Wilson said Iacobucci would ideally step
down from his
role leading the Trans Mountain expansion consultations, but
should at
least choose to remove himself from one of the files.
“I
think he’s embroiled in SNC and that he should stay over there but
step down
from the Trans Mountain pipeline one,” she said. “I would
prefer him to step
down from that one (the Trans Mountain pipeline)
but maybe the majority of
Canadians would prefer him out of SNC, I
don’t know.”
“He made a mess
over there, we don’t want him to make a mess over here.”
Wilson said the
government's handling of both files showed a startling
lack of
transparency.
“With SNC, we don’t know what was said to Minister
Jody
Wilson-Raybould or in the thousands of lobby meetings between SNC
and
the government," she said. "We also don’t know how Trans Mountain
was
handled in the inner core of the prime minister’s office and
the
various ministries involved, especially now that they are owners
of
the pipeline.”
She pointed out the SNC-Lavalin could clearly
benefit from
construction and engineering contracts if Trans Mountain gets
built.
SNC-Lavalin employs about 9,000 people across Canada who work
on
projects in a variety of sectors, including oil, gas and
pipelines.
A spokesman for SNC-Lavalin declined to comment when asked
about
Iacobucci's dual roles. Iacobucci didn't respond to a request
for
comment.
In May 2018, Canada’s elections watchdog laid charges
against a former
SNC executive, accusing him of orchestrating illegal federal
political
donations the company made, mostly to Liberal groups, as well as
to
Conservatives, more than a decade ago.
During an emergency debate
about the SNC-Lavalin scandal on Feb. 28,
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May
stood in the House of Commons to muse
about Iacobucci's role in two key files
it is juggling.
"Frank Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet. He is playing
an
interesting role here. I wonder if my friend finds it's curious in
any
way that SNC-Lavalin's lawyer was the choice of the prime minister
to
run the Indigenous consulations in the repairing of the
flawed
consultations on the Kinder Morgan pipeline," she said, during
an
exchange in the Commons with Conservative MP Michael Barrett,
who
represents the Ontario riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand
Islands.
"And he is still playing that role, while he is also
SNC-Lavalin's
lawyer."
Barrett responded by saying that nothing
surprises him at this point.
Hartland Paterson
Executive Vice
President & General Counsel:
Called to the bar: 1987 (QC)
Charles
Nieto
Senior Legal Counsel:
Called to the bar: 1995 (QC)
SNC-Lavalin
Inc.
455 boul. René-Lévesque o.
Montréal, Québec H2Z 1Z3
Phone:
514-393-8000 Ext: 522668
Fax: 514-866-5057
Email: charles.nieto@snclavalin.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date:
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 22:48:08 -0400
Subject: ATTN Anthony Housefather Your boss
Trudeau cannot stop your
friend Jody Wilson-Raybould talking about Re Federal
Court File No
T-1557-15 Correct?
To: anthony.housefather@parl.gc.ca
Wilson-Raybould
says PMO restricting her ability to 'speak freely' at
Justice committee
Wednesday
Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on
cabinet
confidence, solicitor-client privilege
Kathleen Harris · CBC News
· Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca
Date:
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:00:50 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Murray Rankin
and David Lametti Re
Federal Court File No T-1557-15 I just called again
Correct?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
For
British Columbia media inquiries please email Krystal at Murray.Rankin.C1@parl.gc.ca
For
National media inquiries please email Charlotte at Murray.Rankin.A2@parl.gc.ca
---
Thank
you for taking the time to contact me and to express your views.
I
acknowledge receipt of your email.
While my team and I read all
correspondence, the volume of emails we
receive means that I am not able to
respond immediately to every
message. Every effort will be made to reply to
you as soon as
possible. In most cases, anonymous, cc'd or forwarded mail
will not
receive a response.
If you are a constituent of Victoria seeking
assistance with a federal
service or program, then please ensure your email
included your full
name, address, postal code, telephone number, and the
details of your
situation so that my office is able help you efficiently. If
the
matter is time-sensitive, then please call my office directly
at
250-363-3600. If we are unable to answer your call immediately,
please
leave a voicemail and we will return your call at our
earliest
opportunity. Please be assured that all email sent to this office
is
treated as confidential.
My team and I look forward to continuing
our hard work for the
residents of Victoria.
Sincerely,
Murray
Rankin, Member of Parliament
Victoria
NDP Justice Critic and Deputy House
Leader
New Democratic
Party
________________________________________________________
Victoria:
250-363-3600 | Ottawa: 613-996-2358 | www.murrayrankin.ca
UFCW
232
On 2/26/19, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://murrayrankin.ndp.ca/ndp-calls-for-investigation-into-former-attorney-general-s-firing
>
>
>
NDP calls for investigation into former Attorney General’s
firing
>
> February 8th, 2019 - 4:06pm
>
> NDP Critic
for Justice Murray Rankin made the following statement:
>
>
“Canadians have a right to question whether this Prime Minister fired
>
Canada’s first Indigenous Justice Minister for ‘speaking truth to
>
power’.
>
> The government has denied the Prime Minister or his
backroom advisors
> fired Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould because she
refused to yield to
> pressure in the SNC-Lavalin matter.
>
>
Canadians have to be assured the independence of the justice system
> has
not been compromised. In these circumstances, Canadians cannot be
>
expected to take the Prime Minister’s word for it.
>
> As Vice Chair
of the Justice Committee, I have joined with MP Michael
> Cooper in
calling for the former Attorney General, the current Justice
> Minister,
and high-ranking officials in the Prime Minister’s Office to
> appear
before the Justice Committee as soon as possible.
>
> My NDP
colleagues, Nathan Cullen and Charlie Angus, have also written
> to the
Ethics Commissioner to ensure an investigation by that office
> is
undertaken.
>
> The integrity of our justice system may well be at
issue. The Liberal
> government must allow the Justice Committee to do its
work on behalf
> of Canadians and clear the air at this critical
time.”
>
>
>
> – 30 –
>
>
>
>
For more information, please contact:
>
> NDP Media Centre:
613-222-2351 or media@ndp.ca
>
>
>
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ministerial Correspondence
Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:35:05 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE
FATCA, the CRA and the IRS YO Donald J.
> Trump Jr. why does your ex
lawyer Mr Cohen and the Canadain FEDS
> continue lie after all this
time???
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
>
Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
>
Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
>
> Due to the significant
increase in the volume of correspondence
> addressed to the Minister,
please note that there may be a delay in
> processing your email. Rest
assured that your message will be
> carefully reviewed.
>
> We
do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive
language.
>
> -------------------
>
> Merci d'avoir
écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
> Justice et procureur
général du Canada.
>
> En raison d'une augmentation importante du
volume de la correspondance
> adressée au ministre, veuillez prendre note
qu'il pourrait y avoir un
> retard dans le traitement de votre courriel.
Nous tenons à vous
> assurer que votre message sera lu avec
soin.
>
> Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un
langage offensant.
>
----------
Original message ----------
From: "LSD / DSJ (JUS/JUS)" <BPIB-DGPAA@justice.gc.ca>
Date:
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 19:25:31 +0000
Subject: RE: YO Pierre Poilievre I just
called and tried to reason
with David Lametti's minions and got nowhere fast
Surprise Surprise
Surprise N'esy Pas Petev Baby Mackay?
To: David Amos
<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
This
confirms receipt of the message that you recently sent to the
Legal Systems
Division or to the Justipedia Team of the Legal
Practices Branch. We will
review your message and reply within
forty-eight (48) hours. Please do not
reply to this email.
***
La présente confirme réception du message
que vous avez fait parvenir
à la Division des systèmes juridiques ou à
l’équipe de Justipédia de
la Direction générale des pratiques juridiques.
Nous réviserons votre
message et vous répondrons dans les quarante-huit (48)
heures. Prière
de ne pas répondre au présent courriel.
Telephone: 613-957-4967
Fax:
613-948-6924
Email: olad-dlo@justice.gc.ca
Address:
Official Languages Directorate
Department of Justice Canada
350 Albert
Street, 3rd floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
---------- Original message
----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date:
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:58:23 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: C'yall in
Court
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank
you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the significant increase in the volume
of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a
delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will
be
carefully reviewed.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit
à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
Justice et procureur général du
Canada.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la
correspondance
adressée à la ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y
avoir
un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à
vous
assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
----------
Original message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice
Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date:
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:18:45 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks David
Lametti should go back to law
school too N'esy Pas Pierre Poilievre?
To:
David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank
you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the significant increase in the volume
of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a
delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will
be
carefully reviewed.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit
à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
Justice et procureur général du
Canada.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la
correspondance
adressée à la ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y
avoir
un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à
vous
assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date:
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:18:49 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks David
Lametti should go back to law
school too N'esy Pas Pierre Poilievre?
To:
motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank
you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament
for Vancouver Granville.
This message is to acknowledge that we are in
receipt of your email.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of
correspondence, there
may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
that your
message will be carefully reviewed.
To help us address your
concerns more quickly, please include within
the body of your email your full
name, address, and postal code.
Thank
you
-------------------
Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody
Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.
Le pr?sent message
vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une
augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera
examin? attentivement.
Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations
plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom
complet,
votre adresse et votre code
postal.
Merci
---------- Forwarded message
----------
From: michael.chong@parl.gc.ca
Date:
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 22:18:49 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks David
Lametti should go back to law
school too N'esy Pas Pierre Poilievre?
To:
motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thanks
very much for getting in touch with me!
This email is to acknowledge
receipt of your message and to let you
know that every incoming email is read
and reviewed. A member of my
Wellington-Halton Hills team will be in touch
with you shortly if
follow-up is required.
Due to the high volume of email
correspondence, priority is given to
responding to residents of
Wellington-Halton Hills and to emails of a
non-chain (or "forwards")
variety.
In your email, if you:
* have verified that you
are a constituent by including your
complete residential postal address and a
phone number, a response
will be provided in a timely manner.
*
have not included your residential postal mailing address,
please resend
your email with your complete residential postal address
and phone number,
and a response will be forthcoming.
If you are not a constituent of
Wellington Halton-Hills, please
contact your Member of Parliament. If you
are unsure who your MP is,
you can find them by searching your postal code
at http://www.ourcommons.ca/en
Any
constituents of Wellington-Halton Hills who require urgent
attention are
encouraged to call the constituency office at
1-866-878-5556 (toll-free in
riding). Please rest assured that any
voicemails will be returned
promptly.
THIS
MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S)
AND MAY
CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR
CONFIDENTIAL. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
copying, conversion to hard copy
or other use of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient and have
received this message in error, please notify me
by return e-mail and
delete this message from your
system.
Jagmeet
Singh on Tory opponent: 'Maybe he should go back to law school'
Conservative
candidate Jay Shin said Singh was 'keeping criminals out
of jail' during his
days as a criminal defence lawyer
Kelvin Gawley Burnaby Now January 13, 2019
10:27 AM
Now
if Mr Shin scrolls down he will know some of what the fancy NDP
lawyer has
known for quite sometime
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
"Singh - QP, Jagmeet" <JSingh-QP@ndp.on.ca>
Date:
Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court
File # T-1557-15 and the
upcoming hearing on May 24th I called a lot of your
people before High
Noon today Correct Ralph Goodale and Deputy Minister
Malcolm Brown?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
For
immediate assistance please contact our Brampton office at
905-799-3939 or jsingh-co@ndp.on.ca
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Kennedy.Stewart@parl.gc.ca
Date:
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:18:35 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Minister Ralph
Goodale and Pierre
Paul-Hus Trust that I look forward to arguing the fact
that fhe Crown
filed my Sept 4th email to you and your buddies
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Many
thanks for your message. Your concerns are important to me. If
your matter is
urgent, an invitation or an immigration matter please
forward it to burnabysouth.A1@parl.gc.ca
or burnabysouth.C1@parl.gc.ca.
This email is no longer being monitored.
The House of Commons of Canada
provides for the continuation of
services to the constituents of a Member of
Parliament whose seat has
become vacant. The party Whip supervises the staff
retained under
these circumstances.
Following the resignation of the
Member for the constituency of
Burnaby South, Mr. Kennedy Stewart, the
constituency office will
continue to provide services to
constituents.
You can reach the Burnaby South constituency office by
telephone at
(604) 291-8863 or by mail at the following address: 4940
Kingsway,
Burnaby BC.
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
Date:
Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:54:40 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Blair Armitage
You acted as the Usher
of the Black Rod twice while Kevin Vickers was the
Sergeant-at-Arms
Hence you and the RCMP must know why I sued the Queen
Correct?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Effective
January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
counsel to President
Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com
and all future calls should be
directed to
646-853-0114.
________________________________
This communication is
from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
thereof and is not sent on behalf
of any other individual or entity.
This email may contain information that is
confidential and/or
proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed,
used,
copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the
intended
recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you
have
received this communication in error, please immediately delete it
and
promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed
to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be
intercepted,
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain
viruses
or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do
not
guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability
for
any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented
in
any email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
affiliates.
Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
electronic
signature under applicable law.
Mr.
Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister
of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of
the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the
Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal
claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the
Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we
will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Department of
Justice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eidt, David
(OAG/CPG)" <David.Eidt@gnb.ca>
Date:
Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome
your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed
affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I
will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have
little to
no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>
Date:
Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New
Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the
bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I
will be out of the office until August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du
bureau
jusqu'au 15 août 2016.
> ---------- Forwarded message
----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity
Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
>
Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office
again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first
time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to
the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not
after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal
Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only
document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal
Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is
the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>
>
These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec
14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>
>
January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>
>
April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>
>
>
This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>
>
>
The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>
>
>
This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date:
20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New
Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.
Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND
AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY
THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> 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”
> Judge
>
>
>
Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>
already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to
your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I
noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
>
Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom
of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now
before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the
lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ----------
Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
>
Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My
complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter
MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my
complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
>
Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
>
lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
>
Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
>
Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
>
To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
>
Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>
>
>
83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
>
in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>
allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five
years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This
Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
>
December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October
3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes
And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free
ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s
skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister
Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the
second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against
or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers
that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation.
There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of
the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces
for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last
minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its
mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would
not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy
a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins
to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it
was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq.
But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister
Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean
Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was
heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI
Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the
Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the
Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean
Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest
“war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian
Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant,
uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand
is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is
known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the
same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war”
make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan
cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian
nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the
Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What
Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a
“vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien
Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in
this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding
a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
>
President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks
in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan
was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training
for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat,
and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S.
Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the
latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my
files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his
friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
>
Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy,
Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
>
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
>
January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David
Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge
receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren
McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations
made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to
Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in
Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B.
Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
>
Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From:
"Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net,
MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
>
nada.sarkis@gnb.ca,
wally.stiles@gnb.ca,
dwatch@web.net,
>
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com,
riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca,
>
Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev
BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>
"Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten
me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr.
Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on
days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest
assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your
concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier
Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs
do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are
referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can
provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise
in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be
done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government,
false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is
clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in
Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of
Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was
indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December
23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
>
Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia
RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506)
387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
>
Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
>
Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B
5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
Sunday,
19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And
Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter
Before
The Supreme Court
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on
the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at
Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE
COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA
213
CORAM:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the
cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1]
On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a
53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty
the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public
apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally
barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from
the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer
allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass
him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November
12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a
prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its
entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious
that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally
vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment
(the
Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016
(2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a
judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck
all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for
damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature
in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos
appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to
the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for
delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the
Crown’s
cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary
Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law
in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6,
2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the
judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the
first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of
interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of
appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name
those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not
have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because
he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with
the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of
Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal
Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4)
and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:
5(4)
Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge
of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and
authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
5(4) Les
juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et
ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel
fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by
virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all
the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal
Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges
de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these
subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges
of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one
court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no
need for this
section.
[8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal
Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called
the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal
Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It
is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in
and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and
as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal
jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la
Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale »
en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté
du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue
d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et
pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal
Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court”
in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional
court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better
administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having
civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du
Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est
maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en
anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit,
d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du
droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives
ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9]
Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this
Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos
suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed
in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file
appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules,
SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court.
The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an
appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only
documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of
that
appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact
and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court,
in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have
a
conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April
3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court
seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with
a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued
a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to
judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the
Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of
this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before
this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal
Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion
brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed
in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this
Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos
alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest
and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of
a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was
also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the
conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in
his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages
of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized
the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the
particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by
including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim
that
such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the
alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge
of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm
Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos
submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and
Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was
a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb
was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which
Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that
he
was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral
submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged
conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a
particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted
by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with
this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with
this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings
were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the
Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The
documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice
Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s
Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the
same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that
indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an
affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of
Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a
number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also
included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is
John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of
Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed
to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen
Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to
a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16] Mr. Amos’
position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson
Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the
Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted
that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there
is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60 In Canadian law, one
standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The
criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and
Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716],
at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of
bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons,
applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required
information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an
informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and
having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more
likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously
or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue
to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter
realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would
conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of
bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption
that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will
not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins
v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins].
See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151
D.L.R.
(4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando
Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the
Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed
the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing
a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved
in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal
determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no
involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario
Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge
is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer
has a conflict:
27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary
to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case
over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no
involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is
disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr.
Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his
appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him
from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of
the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a
trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by
the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v.
Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58,
that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a
judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29
It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in
application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in
particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in
the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in
cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a
firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by
Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249
(S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a
disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a
conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no
confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is
the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial
judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case
and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face
value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para.
19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular
circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find
a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there
are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not
to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties
accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm
and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage
of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
To us, one
significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the
reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s
impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most
arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either
contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time
prior to the decision-making.
31 There are other factors that inform
the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by
the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J.
had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship
with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32
In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would
conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this
case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and
the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the
Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be
reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the
case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some
correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to
believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former
firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would
throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour
a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six
years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case
involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)
[19]
Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while
he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos
suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter
that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he
was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough
for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos
with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would
have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when
he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of
any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos
had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself
is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice
Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in
the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this
appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man.
R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was
no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member
of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no
involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that
firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000]
4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be
a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was
a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was
before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb
did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a
lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos
also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated
June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance
wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided
a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law
enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the
court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an
“American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American
law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests,
a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23]
As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias
for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse
himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past
professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in
deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice
Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in
the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25]
Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations
against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of
hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and
Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney
were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question,
which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards”
and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that
the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by
Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no
reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question
does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III.
Issue
[26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as
follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking
the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that
Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New
Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of
action?
IV. Analysis
A. Standard of
Review
[27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside
the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review
to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and
decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in
Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA
215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel
of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with
that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R.
235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the
Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by
a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of
the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal
if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and
overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact
and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere
with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary
order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error
in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).
[28] In the case at bar, the
Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the
Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine
whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in
choosing to
interfere.
B. Did the Judge err in
interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?
[29] The
Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s
submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave
to amend:
17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the
Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but
four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in
2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction
of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right
of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or
provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not
give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)
21.
The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no
details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged
incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a
result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the
Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of
Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended
cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized
as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes
omitted].
[30] The Judge determined that he could not
strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The
Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on
the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the
actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In
considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge
identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as
it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting
as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment
at
para. 27).
[31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event
could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office
and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v.
Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13] As in both the
cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v
Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’
statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in
public office:
a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and
unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
b) The
public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful
and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an
element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of
harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad
faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal
Court Judgment at para. 28).
[32] The Judge determined that Mr.
Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of
misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the
New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so
for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33]
This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant
Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is
particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not
enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately
or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did
steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is
called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making
bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an
abuse
of process…
To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in
public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in
carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the
public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or
her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations
is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization
of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a
person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations
omitted).
[34] Applying the Housen standard of review to
the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge
interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35]
The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable
claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns
and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14
of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to
how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that
his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in
bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred
from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious
reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed
against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As
such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the
RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable
of
supporting a cause of action.
[36] In our view, the Claim
is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it
discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the
Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside
the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further,
we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The
deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment
could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
V.
Conclusion
[37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the
Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court
Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order,
dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its
entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G.
Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM
AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET
NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
A-48-16
STYLE OF
CAUSE:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE
OF HEARING:
Fredericton,
New Brunswick
DATE OF
HEARING:
May 24, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DATED:
October
30, 2017
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos
For The Appellant
/ respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)
Jan
Jensen
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON
CROSS-APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
SNC-Lavalin
faces charges of fraud and corruption in connection with nearly $48
million in payments made to Libyan government officials between 2001 and
2011. (CBC)
Jody
Wilson-Raybould testified that when she was attorney general, she was
pressured by top government officials, including the prime minister, to
step in and resolve the corruption and fraud case against SNC-Lavalin
Group. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
No comments:
Post a Comment