Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Ms. Aviva Rotenberg
(613) 595-1101
arotenberg@cacp.ca Friday, April 16, 2021 at 12:58 PM
Congratulations to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP)
on the selection of its new Executive Director, Ms. Aviva Rotenberg.
She will assume the leadership of our national association on Monday,
May 3, 2021.
Ms. Rotenberg comes to the CACP from the Canadian Bar Association
(CBA) where she devoted 15 years of her career in supporting the goals
and objectives of the association as the Director of Strategic
Initiatives and as a past Director of Professional Development.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <
david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:25:34 -0400
Subject: Yo Wayne Gallant I just called you and CACP again
To:
wayne.gallant@nbpolice.ca,
cacp@cacp.ca,
Roger.Brown@fredericton.ca,
rod.knecht@edmontonpolice.ca,
Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
DDrummond@google.com,
tanya.cyr@nbpolice.ca, "hon.ralph.goodale"
<
hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "wayne.easter"
<
wayne.easter@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca,
"carl.urquhart" <
carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>,
Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
washington field <
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail"
<
Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:01:05 -0400
Subject: Fwd: I just called and tried to discuss Whitey Bulger's
recent murder in prison and his victims buried in the Yarmouth area
long ago
To:
cacp@cacp.ca,
timsmith2000@rogers.com Cc: David Amos <
david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
https://www.cacp.ca/contact-us.html The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
300 Terry Fox Drive, Unit 100
Kanata, ON K2K 0E3
TELEPHONE
(613) 595-1101
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2019/yarmouth-rural-rcmp-respond-shooting-suspect-arrested Cpl. Jennifer Clarke
Public Information Officer
Nova Scotia RCMP
Office: 902-720-5652
Cell: 902-222-0154
jennifer.clarke@rcmp-grc.gc.cahttp://www.cisc.gc.ca/about-ausujet/index-eng.htm Criminal Intelligence Bureaus
CISC Central Bureau: CISC Central Bureau is responsible for the
delivery of criminal intelligence products and services to the
national law enforcement community and other stakeholders responsible
for public safety. It also oversees the maintenance of a criminal
intelligence databank on organized crime used by the CISC membership
across Canada. CISC Central Bureau is part of National Police
Services, which consists of a number of different and specialized
programs and services stewarded by the RCMP.
Provincial Bureaus: The ten provincial bureaus operate independently
while maintaining national service delivery standards. They focus on
activities within their respective provinces and guide the collection,
analysis and production of criminal intelligence products and services
at the provincial level. The intelligence collected and analyzed
through the provincial bureaus is instrumental in the creation of the
national intelligence products and services delivered by CISC Central
Bureau.
Governance
National Executive Committee: CISC's strategic direction is governed
by a Constitution and by the National Executive Committee (NEC). As
CISC's governing body, the NEC provides strategic leadership to ensure
that CISC is able to fulfill its mandate. Meeting annually, the
committee is comprised of approximately 25 ex-officio members who are
leaders from Canada's law enforcement community at the municipal,
provincial and federal levels.
Provincial Executive Committees: The ten provincial criminal
intelligence service bureaus receive strategic direction from their
Provincial Executive Committee (PEC). Each of the PEC Chairs is an
ex-officio member of the National Executive Committee.
National Collaboration
The Criminal Intelligence Network: CISC member agencies exchange
information and intelligence on organized criminal activity. CISC
Central Bureau classifies member agencies into three categories:
Category I – Police Agency: The agency has full police officer
authority provided under a Canadian federal or provincial police act.
The primary role of the agency is law enforcement and the agency
contributes to the criminal intelligence process.
Category II – Agency with Specific Law Enforcement Role: The
agency has specific but limited law enforcement responsibilities. Its
authority is provided under specific federal or provincial legislation
(e.g. Customs Act, Immigration Act, Provincial Wildlife Act). Category
II Membership may be granted to a foreign law enforcement or
intelligence agency if, as determined by the respective Provincial
Executive Committee, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the
broader criminal intelligence community.
Category III – Agency with Role Complementary to Law Enforcement:
The agency has no direct law enforcement authority but provides
assistance to law enforcement agencies.
Clients, Partners and Stakeholders: CISC is an active member of the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police's Organized Crime Committee
and the Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime (CIROC). In
addition, CISC is a member of both the National and Regional
Co-ordinating Committees' National Work Plan to Combat Organized
Crime, operated by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers
responsible for Justice and Public Safety.
Canadian Law Enforcement Strategy to Combat Organized Crime: The
Canadian Law Enforcement Strategy embodies the partnership between the
functions of intelligence and operations across all jurisdictions of
law enforcement. This agreement enables the integration and
cooperation of intelligence and operations through CISC and the
Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime (CIROC) – under the
governance of the National Executive Committee and each Provincial
Executive Committee. Participating agencies commit to: contributing
information to a common, national intelligence database; collecting
and sharing information for the production of an annual, integrated
threat assessment; and, using the resulting threat assessments for
enforcement priority setting.
Criminal Intelligence Service of New Brunswick helping to combat crime
(04/06/16)
NB 692
June 16, 2004
FREDERICTON (CNB) - The Criminal Intelligence Service New Brunswick
(CISNB) opened its new office in Fredericton today.
CISNB stems from the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC),
which is an organization that provides the facilities to unite the
criminal intelligence units of Canadian law enforcement agencies in
the fight against organized crime in Canada.
CISNB will work in close partnership with CISC, the RCMP, municipal
and regional police forces and federal and provincial enforcement
agencies. "It will support law enforcement in the prevention, control
and investigation of organized crime while enhancing public safety,"
CISNB Director Mike Connolly said. "The service will help further the
efforts of law enforcement to collect and analyze criminal information
and set priorities more effectively in order to combat organized
crime."
Public Safety Minister Wayne Steeves is pleased the Province has
invested in this project. "In recognition of the direct link between
safety and security, and intelligence, we increased our support for
Criminal Intelligence Service New Brunswick," the minister said. "Led
by the policing community, this service will help ensure better
coordination of all law enforcement efforts to gather and share
criminal intelligence in order to combat organized crime, serious
crime, and terrorist activity."
04/06/16
MEDIA CONTACTS: Mike Connolly, 506-452-2048, Roger Somers, 506-452-3941.
04/06/16
CISNB releases first report on organized and serious crime in N.B. (04/10/13)
NB 1126
Oct. 13, 2004
FREDERICTON (CNB) - The Criminal Intelligence Service New Brunswick
(CISNB) has released its first public report on Organized and Serious
Crime in New Brunswick.
The release took place today during the opening of the16th annual
Atlantic Criminal Intelligence Workshop. Taking part in the opening
were Public Safety Minister Wayne Steeves, the director of CISNB, Mike
Connolly; Chief Mac Carlisle of the Fredericton Police Force, and
Deputy Chief Al Bodechon, the chair of CISNB's Provincial Committee.
More than 70 representatives from federal, provincial and municipal
law enforcement agencies are attending the workshop.
"This report highlights the nature and scope of organized crime in our
province," Steeves said. "While New Brunswick's crime rate is among
the lowest in the country, it is important for people to realize that
organized crime is becoming more common throughout Canada. It poses a
serious long-term threat to our institutions, society, economy, and to
our quality of life. People need to know that these groups exist. They
need to know that they should not support them and that they should
report any suspicious activity to the police."
The report covers analysis on several aspects of organized crime in
New Brunswick, including cybercrime, drugs, economic crime, gang
activity, motor vehicle crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, organized
crime at the border, ports, and airports, sexual exploitation of
children, and wood theft.
Among the report's findings is an increase in marijuana grow
operations, a rapid increase in fraud in New Brunswick to one of the
highest levels in Canada, a significant problem with motor vehicle
thefts, and the proliferation of local organized crime groups in
illegally harvesting wood. The report also indicates increased
influence and control of crime in New Brunswick by organized crime
from outside the province.
"We hope this report will raise the awareness of the public that
organized crime does exist here in New Brunswick," Connolly said. "If
the public is more vigilant about noticing organized crime and passing
the information on to police, law enforcement agencies will be in a
better position to tackle this growing problem."
The CISNB is one of nine provincial bureaus of the Criminal
Intelligence Service Canada (CISC). Located in Fredericton, CISNB
supports law enforcement through the collection, analysis and
dissemination of criminal intelligence.
The report is available online at the "J" Division RCMP website at:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb, and on the websites of all major police
forces in New Brunswick.
04/10/13
MEDIA CONTACT: Mike Connolly, director, CISNB, 506-452-2455.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:38:58 -0400
Subject: ATTN Senator Bev Busson I just called your office to make
certain that you would remember me
To:
Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca, "Brenda.Lucki"
<
Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
"serge.rousselle" <
serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "Stephen.Horsman"
<
Stephen.Horsman@gnb.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
<
hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<
Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely"
<
Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Dale.Morgan"
<
Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "dale.drummond"
<
dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
, "Ian.McPhail"
<
Ian.McPhail@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>, "Larry.Tremblay"
<
Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, washington field
<
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail" <
Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov>,
"martin.gaudet" <
martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
, "Leanne.Fitch"
<
Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>, "ian.fahie" <
ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"ian.mcphail" <
ian.mcphail@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>
, "Frank.McKenna"
<
Frank.McKenna@td.com>, "brian.gallant" <
brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <
blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy"
<
Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "greg.byrne" <
greg.byrne@gnb.ca>,
"Gerald.Butts" <
Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, pm <
pm@pm.gc.ca>,
"Katie.Telford" <
Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
<
andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
<
maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "charlie.angus"
<
charlie.angus@parl.gc.ca>, "Murray.Rankin" <
Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <
david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
, Newsroom
<
Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, news <
news@kingscorecord.com>, news
<
news@dailygleaner.com>
Please enjoy the attachment and say Hey to Ralph Goodale and Frank
McKenna for me will ya?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <
Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:27:06 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Senator Bev Busson Remember me?
To: David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
message sera examin? avec attention.
Merci!
L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
S?curit? publique Canada
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
carefully reviewed.
Thank you!
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Public Safety Canada
On 10/9/18, David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> Senator Bev Busson
> Province: British Columbia (British Columbia)
> Affiliation: Non-affiliated
> Telephone: 613-944-3453
> Fax: 613-992-7959
> Email:
Beverley.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY>
> RCMP Sussex New Brunswick
> 1,995 views
> David Amos
> Published on Apr 4, 2013
> 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
>
>
>
> CLEARLY THE RCMP/GRC AND THE KPMG PALS DO NOT KNOW
>
> HOW TO READ LET ALONE COUNT BEANS EH?
>
>
>
> 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 n
>
> 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 and
>
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>
> 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>
>
>
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/09/24/prime-minister-announces-appointment-two-senators>
> rime Minister announces the appointment of two Senators
>
> Ottawa, Ontario - September 24, 2018
>
> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that the Governor
> General appointed the following independent Senators to fill vacancies
> in the Senate:
>
> Beverley Busson (British Columbia)
> Martin Klyne (Saskatchewan)
>
> Mrs. Busson is a champion of women in the workforce and enjoyed a
> distinguished career in the RCMP. Her efforts to push gender-based
> barriers and her expertise in security led to her becoming the first
> woman to lead the RCMP, when she was named Commissioner in 2006.
>
> Mr. Klyne is a proud member of the Cree Métis with extensive business
> experience. He focused much of his career and volunteer efforts on
> advancing the economic development of Indigenous communities.
>
> Both of these individuals were recommended by the Independent Advisory
> Board for Senate Appointments and chosen using the process open to all
> Canadians. This process ensures Senators are independent, reflect
> Canada’s diversity, and are able to tackle the broad range of
> challenges and opportunities facing the country.
> Quote
>
> “I am pleased to welcome two new members to the Senate who have
> done tremendous work in their professional lives and as active members
> of their communities. I am confident that they will work diligently
> and with integrity to serve the best interests of the country and all
> Canadians.”
> —The Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
>
> Quick Facts
>
> There have been 40 appointments to the Senate made on the advice
> of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
> Under the Canadian Constitution, the Governor General appoints
> individuals to the Senate. By convention, Senators are appointed on
> the advice of the Prime Minister.
> Once appointed by the Governor General and summoned to the Senate,
> the new Senators join their peers to examine and revise legislation,
> investigate national issues, and represent regional, provincial, and
> minority interests –important functions in a modern democracy.
>
> Biographical Notes
>
> Beverley Busson
> Martin Klyne
>
> Associated Links
>
> Frequently Asked Questions – Senate appointments process
> Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments
>
>
>
>
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/09/24/beverley-busson>
> Beverley Busson is a champion for women in the workforce. With a law
> degree from the University of British Columbia, her career as a law
> enforcement officer was a career of firsts. A member of the first
> class of women to enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), she
> has worked in various positions, including investigating frauds,
> drugs, and serious crimes, and she was among the first women to work
> in plain clothes and undercover.
>
> Mrs. Busson rose steadily through the ranks, becoming the first woman
> commissioned officer, the first woman criminal operations officer, the
> first woman commanding officer, and the first woman deputy
> commissioner of a region. Her efforts to push gender-based barriers
> and her increasing expertise in security led to the pinnacle of her
> career in law enforcement when she was named Commissioner of the RCMP
> in 2006. She was the first woman to hold the position.
>
> Following her retirement from the force, Mrs. Busson served as a
> member of the RCMP Reform Implementation Council. She has also
> volunteered her time as a director with the Justice Institute of
> British Columbia and the Okanagan College Foundation, as well as with
> the Women’s Executive Network mentorship program.
>
> For her long-standing contributions to Canadian security and advancing
> women in the workforce, Mrs. Busson was invested as a Commander of the
> Order of Merit of Police Forces, awarded the Canadian Forces Vice
> Chief of Defence Staff Commendation and the Order of British Columbia,
> and appointed as a Member of the Order of Canada.
>
---------- 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.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <
JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "
motomaniac333@gmail.com" <
motomaniac333@gmail.com>
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>
On 8/3/17, David Amos <
motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
>
http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz> ilian.html
>
>>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>>
http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200>> 6
>>
>>
http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html>>
>>
http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139>>
>>
http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email:
bbachrach@bowditch.com>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html 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
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
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)
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
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
Former OPP Chief Supt. Carson Pardy appears at the Public Order
Emergency Commission, in Ottawa, Friday, Oct. 21, 2022. (Adrian
Wyld/The Canadian Press)
Peter Sloly resigned from the Ottawa police on Feb. 15 following heavy
criticism of his handling of the truck convoy. (Fred Chartrand/The
Canadian Press)
Ontario
Provincial Police Supt. Craig Abrams arrives for the second day of his
testimony at the Public Order Emergency Commission on October 21, 2022
in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:49 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment