 | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (November 2016) |
Functus officio refers to an officer or agency whose mandate has expired, due to either the arrival of an expiry date or an agency having accomplished the purpose for which it was created.[1] When used to describe a court, it can refer to one whose duty or authority has come to an end: "Once a court has passed a valid sentence after a lawful hearing, it becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the case."
Relationship to doctrine of res judicata
Functus officio is thus bound up with the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents (in the absence of statutory authority) the re-opening of a matter before the same court, tribunal or other statutory actor that rendered the final decision. There are many exceptions; for instance, where a statute authorizes variations of the original decision, the decision maker may revisit his or her previous decision. Common examples include legal competency hearings, parole board hearings and family law proceedings. There is an important difference between res judicata and functus officio: the former refers to the end of a case, while the latter refers to the expiration of an office. Functus officio derives from "fungi": to perform, end or expire (cognate to the ordinary English word "defunct"). Res judicata means "the thing has been decided" and derives from the principle "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it is for the good of the commonwealth that there be a terminus to litigation).
Canadian doctrinal and judicial writing on functus officio is sparse,[2] even though the rule itself derives from a 19th century case of the English Court of Appeal.[3] In the case of Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J. summarized in relation to the principle of functus officio: "The general rule (is) that a final decision of a court cannot be reopened ... the rule applied only after the formal judgment had been drawn up, issued and entered, and was subject to two exceptions: where there had been a slip in drawing it up, and where there was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court." This Court affirmed that the rule need not always be rigidly applied to tribunals in the administrative law context when the policy reasons for it are not present.[4]
Right to appeal
The existence and scope of a right of appeal has often been made the focus of analytical attention in applying the functus officio doctrine. Such was the case when the power of the Court of Chancery to rehear cases was extinguished by the Judicature Acts in 1873 by fusing common law and equity jurisdictions into one court and providing for a single appeal to a newly created Court of Appeal.[3] Originally, this was also the focus of the functus officio analysis for administrative tribunals that had rights of appeal tightly constrained by statute.[5] However, the underlying rationale for the doctrine is clearly more fundamental: for the due and proper administration of justice, there must be finality to a proceeding to ensure procedural fairness and the integrity of the judicial system.[6]
As a general rule, once . . . a tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances. . . .
To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. If a court is permitted to continually revisit or reconsider final orders simply because it has changed its mind or wishes to continue exercising jurisdiction over a matter, there would never be finality to a proceeding, or, as G. Pépin and Y. Ouellette have perceptively termed it, the providing of [translation] “legal security” for the parties.[7] This concern for finality is evident in the definition of functus officio:[8]
[translation] Qualifies a court or tribunal, a public body or an official that is no longer seized of a matter because it or he or she has discharged the office. E.g. A judge who has pronounced a final judgment is functus officio.
The principle ensures that, subject to an appeal, parties are secure in their reliance on the finality of superior court decisions.
In the context of arbitration, courts have barred arbitrators from correcting anything in final awards other than clerical, typographical or computational errors. As there is no appeal from arbitral awards, the doctrine has permitted erroneous awards to stand.[9]
Codification in rules of civil procedure
This common law rule is further reflected in modern rules of civil procedure[10] and the interpretation of criminal appeal provisions.[11] Whether in its common law or statutory form, the doctrine of functus officio provides that only in strictly limited circumstances can a court revisit an order or judgment.[12] Otherwise, there would be, to paraphrase Charron J. A.,[13] the recurring danger of the trial process becoming or appearing to become a “never closing revolving door” through which litigants could come and go as they pleased.
Separation of Powers
Whether a court has the requisite authority to act raises the separation of powers. If a court intervenes in matters of administration properly entrusted to the executive, it exceeds its proper sphere and thereby breaches the separation of powers. By crossing the boundary between judicial acts and administrative oversight, it acts illegitimately and without jurisdictionhttps://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2017/11/on-all-hallows-eve-many-feds-and-many.html
Thursday, 2 November 2017
Thursday, 2 November 2017
On all Hallows Eve many FEDS and many ghosts knew I saw RED not just the ghosts of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and her old lover boy Dennis Banks
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/methinks-rcmp-fbi-dhs-and-lot-od.html
Wednesday, 1 November 2017
Methinks the RCMP, the FBI, the DHS and a lot of lawyers should be concerned about this transcript
"Now I have a bone to pick with many judges in federal court and a lot in the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, but not all. And not every judge or every lawyer is a crook. Some of them are actually friends of mine. Only problem I have with them is they think I can't pull this off. That the system is just too powerful. Well could be. Call me crazy if you wish, I can be as crazy as I want to be. How do you explain my having FBI wiretap tapes of the mob and three weeks after he mentioned about me being in federal court, the outgoing Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. said beware of the mob. Bob Paulson said that"
---------- Original message ----------
From: Michael GIBBS michael.p.gibbs@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 18:56:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Fwd: On all Hallows Eve many FEDS and many ghosts knew I saw RED not just the ghosts of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and her old lover boy Dennis Banks (Out of Office)
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
I will away from my office until Nov 13th. In my absence Insp John Sutherland will be the acting District Commander.
Thanks,
Mike
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:56:50 -0400
Subject: Fwd: On all Hallows Eve many FEDS and many ghosts knew I saw RED not just the ghosts of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and her old lover boy Dennis Banks
To: info@murphyslegal.ca, Gunther.Schonfeldt@cpc-cpp.gc.ca, ian.mcphail@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca, dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Frank.McKenna@td.com, angelina.irinici@bellmedia.ca,
Michael.p.gibbs@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, Charles.Hamilton@cbc.ca
Cc: David Amos
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/member-conduct
Member conduct
•Conduct process overview
•Conduct hearing schedule
•Amended RCMP Act
•Annual report
•Report on Allegations of Harassment and Sexual Misconduct at the
RCMP's Canadian Police College Explosives Training Unit - July 14,
2016
Public trust is essential for the RCMP to effectively serve and
protect Canadians. As a result, RCMP employees must conduct themselves
in a manner that not only meets, but exceeds, the rightfully high
expectations of Canadians.
RCMP members are subject to the same laws as all Canadian citizens. In
addition, member conduct is guided by the Code of Conduct of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (Code of Conduct). RCMP members are subject to
this Code of Conduct both on and off-duty, in Canada and abroad.
Contraventions of the Code of Conduct are taken seriously and the RCMP
is committed to handling conduct issues in a timely, efficient and
fair manner.
A new Code of Conduct and conduct process were developed in support of
the amended RCMP Act which came into force on November 28, 2014. The
new conduct process allows misconduct to be addressed in a more
responsive, timely and effective manner, and at the lowest appropriate
level. Emphasis is placed on identifying remedial, corrective and
educative solutions, rather than being limited to applying punitive
sanctions.
Conduct hearings
Conduct hearings are initiated in cases where the member's dismissal
is being sought based on the overall circumstances of the allegations.
Conduct hearings are formal, court-like processes that are held before
a board of one or more persons. Boards have the legal authority to
hear evidence, such as sworn testimony, to make determinations as
required and, if the contravention(s) is established, to administer
various conduct measures including dismissal.
Conduct hearings are open to the public. Hearing dates, times, and
locations, are available on the hearing schedule site.
Written board decisions
To request a copy of a written board decision, send an email to:
RCMP.AdjudicationRegistrar-GreffierArbitrage.GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca.
Please note that requests are generally addressed in order in which
they are received.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/colten-boushie-investigation-rcmp-1.4383816
RCMP clears itself of misconduct in Colten Boushie investigation
Family lawyer vows to appeal, says Mounties were wrong to surround family home
By Charles Hamilton, CBC News Posted: Nov 02, 2017 9:53 AM CT
"The family's lawyer said he plans to appeal to the Civilian Review
and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.
Boushie, 22, was killed on a farm near Biggar, Sask. in August 2016. (Facebook)
"There would have been other ways for the RCMP to notify Debbie
Baptiste of the death of her son," Chris Murphy said.
Murphy said the search of Baptiste's home was based on "complete
speculation" that an armed individual was inside.
"The police [didn't] have any reliable information," he said. "
http://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/when-victims-families-hire-lawyers-chris-murphy-s-role-in-the-boushie-case-1.3360098
When victims’ families hire lawyers: Chris Murphy’s role in the Boushie case
Angelina Irinici, Published Friday, April 7, 2017 7:09PM CST
http://www.murphyslegal.ca/profile.php
As a criminal lawyer, drug prosecutor and civil litigator, I have
conducted hundreds of trials. Since becoming a criminal defence lawyer
in Toronto in 2004, I have successfully defended clients charged with
first-degree murder, and have earned dismissals on less serious
charges such as attempted murder, criminal negligence causing death,
impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, aggravated
assault, and multi-kilogram-level drug trafficking. I have appeared at
the Supreme Court of Canada, and have conducted numerous appeals at
the Ontario Court of Appeal.
I am a former drug prosecutor with the Department of Justice Canada.
Before becoming a prosecutor, I acted as a judicial law clerk at the
Supreme Court of British Columbia and assisted Superior Court justices
in deciding the issues raised during criminal proceedings. I also
practiced civil litigation at a firm of some 150 lawyers in Calgary,
Alberta. In addition, I served as a special constable with the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police.
I received a Bachelor of Laws with Distinction from the University of
Saskatchewan in 2000. In 1997, I graduated from the University of
British Columbia with a Masters of Arts degree. I had previously
graduated from the U of S in 1994 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree with
High Honours. In 2004, I received a Certificate in International
Criminal Law from Salzburg Law School.
161 Bay St.,
Suite #2900
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2S1
t. 416.306.2956
f. 416.362.8410
info@murphyslegal.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:21:31 -0400
Subject: On all Hallows Eve many FEDS and many ghosts knew I saw RED
not just the ghosts of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and her old lover boy
Dennis Banks
To: PREMIER@novascotia.ca, OAA@novascotia.ca, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, jamiebaillie@gov.ns.ca, Hon.Chrystia.Freeland@canada.ca,
carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca, Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca,
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov, bostncs@international.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/on-all-hallows-eve-many-feds-and-many.html
Thursday, 2 November 2017
On all Hallows Eve many FEDS and many ghosts knew I saw RED not just
the ghosts of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and her old lover boy Dennis
Banks
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/methinks-rcmp-fbi-dhs-and-lot-od.html
Wednesday, 1 November 2017
Methinks the RCMP, the FBI, the DHS and a lot of lawyers should be
concerned about this transcript
"Now I have a bone to pick with many judges in federal court and a lot
in the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, but not all. And not
every judge or every lawyer is a crook. Some of them are actually
friends of mine. Only problem I have with them is they think I can't
pull this off. That the system is just too powerful. Well could be.
Call me crazy if you wish, I can be as crazy as I want to be. How do
you explain my having FBI wiretap tapes of the mob and three weeks
after he mentioned about me being in federal court, the outgoing
Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. said beware of the mob. Bob Paulson said
that"
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom newsroom@globeandmail.com
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:33:26 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Premie Stevey Boy McNeil RE the Demise of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash's lover boy Dennis Banks Say Hoka Hey to my former Yankee friend Barry Bacjrach for me will ya?
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
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com
Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-activist-dennis-banks-dead-1.4378756
American Indigenous activist Dennis Banks dead at 80
Family says Banks developed pneumonia after undergoing heart surgery last month.
The Associated Press Posted: Oct 30, 2017 2:27 PM ET
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-records-of-2-ethical-clerks-in.html
Wednesday, 1 November 2017
The Records of 2 ethical clerks in Canada on All Hallows' Eve 2017
First in the Federal Court of Appeal Obviously nothing has been recorded since July
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
PROCEEDINGS QUERIES
Recorded entry(ies) for A-48-16
(Close)
Court number information Court Number : A-48-16
Style of Cause : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Proceeding Category : Appeals Nature : Appeal (S.27 - Interloc.) - Others
Type of Action : Non-Action
81 records found for court number A-48-16 Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary
- 2017-07-19 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 19-JUL-2017 re: forwarding the parties' submissions in response to the Court's direction dated June 8, 2017.
39 2017-07-14 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 14-JUL-2017 confirming service of doc.38 on the respondent by Xpresspost on 14-JUL-2017 filed on 14-JUL-2017
38 2017-07-14 Fredericton Written submissions on behalf of the appellant in reply to doc.34 filed on 14-JUL-2017
- 2017-07-10 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from the Appellant by email and the Respondent by fax with respect to the Directions dated July 7, 2017 placed on file on 10-JUL-2017
- 2017-07-10 Ottawa Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb dated 07-JUL-2017 directing "Mr. Amos' summary received on June 26, 2017 in response to the Direction of the Court of June 8, 2017 is to be accepted for filing." received on 10-JUL-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
- 2017-07-10 Fredericton Memorandum to file from Catharine M. Wilson dated 10-JUL-2017 On June 26, 2017 the Registry received further written submissions from the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal on the issue of conflict of interest as per the direction of Webb, JA dated June 8, 2017. The direction allowed for a summary of the issue, not to exceed 5 pages and any additional documents relevant to the issue, to be submitted on or before June 23, 2017. I sent the Appellant's summary/further submissions to the Court for direction with respect to the document being submitted late, and that it exceeded 5 pages. I now realize that the direction of Webb, JA, provided for "any additional documents that are relevant to the issue" and that the Appellant's document did not in fact exceed the number of pages. We await the direction of the Court with respect to the lateness. The Court has been informed of my error. placed on file.
35 2017-07-06 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Respondent's Written Submissions (Doc.34) upon Appellant by facsimile and courier on 05-JUL-2017 filed on 06-JUL-2017
34 2017-07-06 Halifax Written submissions on behalf of the respondent further to Direction of the Court dated June 8, 2017 filed on 06-JUL-2017
- 2017-07-05 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 05-JUL-2017 re: for direction regarding documents received from the appellant on June 26, 2017
37 2017-06-26 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 26-JUN-2017 confirming service of doc.36 on the respondent by Xpresspost on 26-JUN-2017 filed on 26-JUN-2017
36 2017-06-26 Ottawa Written representations on behalf of the appellant in response to the Direction of the Court dated June 8, 2017, filed on 26-JUN-2017
- 2017-06-26 Fredericton Memorandum to file from Catharine M. Wilson dated 26-JUN-2017 On June 26, 2017, the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal submitted a post hearing brief per the direction of Webb, J.A., dated 08-JUN-2017, which is being sent to the FCA for direction as the document was submitted late and exceeds the number of pages. placed on file.
- 2017-06-08 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties by email with respect to the Directions dated June 8, 2017 placed on file on 08-JUN-2017
- 2017-06-08 Ottawa Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb dated 08-JUN-2017 directing "Please advise the parties that Mr. Amos has the right to submit a brief summary (not to exceed 5 pages) to explain the exact conflict that, in his view, arises in this matter with any of the judges assigned to this appeal and to submit any additional documents that are relevant to this issue. This summary and documents are to be submitted on or before June 23, 2017. [...]" received on 08-JUN-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
- 2017-05-26 Fredericton Letter from the respondent to Appellant, provided by Appellant (copy of the letter) dated 26-MAY-2017 The Respondent mentions they want communication from Appellant in written letters by mail only, from now on. received on 26-MAY-2017
- 2017-05-24 Fredericton Request received from MR. Roger Richard for CD audio of the hearing on 24-MAY-2017. Tarriff: $15 paid placed on file on 24-MAY-2017
- 2017-05-24 Fredericton Request received from Appellant for CD audio of the hearing on 24-MAY-2017 for transcript. Tarriff: $15 paid placed on file on 24-MAY-2017
- 2017-05-24 Fredericton This matter comes on for hearing on 24-MAY-2017 at Fredericton before The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason Appearances: David Raymond Amos (self-litigant) 902-800-0369 for the appellant Jan Jensen 902-426-8177 for the respondent Language of Hearing: E Court Usher: Jason Kennedy Duration: on 24-MAY-2017 from 14:03 to 15:58 Courtroom : Courtroom No. 1 - Fredericton Court Registrar Michel Morneault Total duration: 1h55min Before the Court: Cross-appeal Result: reserved Comments: DARS Z005130 was used for the recording of the hearing Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 222 page(s) 411 - 413 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
33 2017-04-24 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal sworn on 24-APR-2017 confirming service of doc.32 on Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal by Xpresspost on 24-APR-2017 filed on 24-APR-2017
32 2017-04-24 Fredericton Book of Authorities with copy on DVD consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal Filed on 24-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the Court stored in Ottawa One copy placed in Annex
31 2017-04-20 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of doc #30 upon Appellant by courier on 20-APR-2017 filed on 20-APR-2017
30 2017-04-20 Halifax Book of Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of HMQ (cross-appeal) Filed on 20-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the Court stored in Ottawa
- 2017-04-19 Fredericton Letter from Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal dated 12-APR-2017 Fax from the Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal to the Appellant/ Respondent on cross-appeal about not reaching an agreement on the contents of a joint book of authorities. received on 19-APR-2017
- 2017-04-13 Ottawa Covering letter from Respondent dated 12-APR-2017 concerning the enclosed DVD containing the Respondent's Memorandum of Fact and Law placed on file on 13-APR-2017
- 2017-04-12 Fredericton Communication by email between parties concerning the Joint Book of Authorities, received by the Appellant received on 12-APR-2017
- 2017-04-04 Ottawa Acknowledgements of receipt of an electronic copy of the hearing date order, e-mailed to: Mr. Jensen (for the Cross-Appellant) and to Mr. Amos (the Cross-Respondent) placed on file on 04-APR-2017
29 2017-03-31 Ottawa Order (time and place) dated 30-MAR-2017 rendered by S. Bazinet, Judicial Administrator and signed by Judicial Administrator fixing the Cross-Appeal to be heard at Special Sitting in Fredericton on 24-MAY-2017 to begin at 14:00 Filed on 31-MAR-2017 cc's sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 298 page(s) 409 - 409 Transmittal letters placed on file
- 2017-03-22 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 22-MAR-2017 re: setting the Hearing date
28 2017-03-13 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Requisition for Hearing upon Appellant (Respondent by Cross-Appeal) by facsimile and courier on 13-MAR-2017 filed on 13-MAR-2017
27 2017-03-13 Halifax Requisition for hearing - Appeal from Respondent (Appellant on Cross-Appeal) filed on 13-MAR-2017
- 2017-03-08 Fredericton Letter from the appellant dated 08-MAR-2017 Email received from Appellant in regards of the Communication to the Court in response to the registry received on 08-MAR-2017
- 2017-03-07 Fredericton Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 07-MAR-2017 According to the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-appeal after discussion, he received the doc.23 from Appellant on Cross-Appeal on 2-FEB-2017. He said the fax copy sent to him prior was incomplete and received the hard copy on 2-FEB-2017. placed on file.
26 2017-03-07 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal sworn on 07-MAR-2017 confirming service of doc.25 on Respondent/Appellant on Cross-Appeal by Xpresspost on 06-MAR-2017 filed on 07-MAR-2017
25 2017-03-06 Fredericton Memorandum of fact and law on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal filed on 06-MAR-2017 3 judges' copies stored in Ottawa
- 2017-02-02 Halifax Memorandum to file from Adam Young, Halifax dated 02-FEB-2017 further to Crown Counsel's letter dated 02-FEB-2017 the recorded entry for the R's Memo of F&L(Doc 23) was amended to reflect that it was on behalf of the Respondent(APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL) placed on file.
- 2017-02-02 Halifax Letter from Jan Jensen, Responsdent on main appeal (Appellant on cross-appeal) dated 02-FEB-2017 providing clarification as to the Respondent's Memo of Fact and law filed on 30-JAN-2017 (Doc 23) received on 02-FEB-2017
24 2017-01-30 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Doc. 23 upon Appellant by telecopier on 30-JAN-2017 filed on 30-JAN-2017
23 2017-01-30 Halifax Memorandum of fact and law on behalf of the respondent (appellant)on cross-appeal as per order of Webb, JA dated 19-DEC-17 (doc.20) filed on 30-JAN-2017 3 judges' copies stored in Ottawa
- 2016-12-20 Ottawa Memorandum to file from the Registry of the FCA dated 20-DEC-2016 transmitting a copy of the Order dated December 19, 2016 to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau and the Actions section of the FC. placed on file.
- 2016-12-20 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties (by email) with respect to the Order of the Court dated December 19, 2016 placed on file on 20-DEC-2016
20 2016-12-20 Ottawa Order dated 19-DEC-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Status Review Result: dismissed "...the Appellant's appeal is dismissed and the Respondent's memorandum of fact and law in respect of the cross-appeal shall be served and filed on or before January 31, 2017." Filed on 20-DEC-2016 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 297 page(s) 381 - 384
- 2016-12-15 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 15-DEC-2016 re: seeking the Court's Direction regarding the filing of the Appellant's Rule 382.3(1) submissions and response to the Status Review.
19 2016-12-01 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of doc #18 upon Appellant by telecopier on 30-NOV-2016 filed on 01-DEC-2016
18 2016-12-01 Halifax Submissions (Rule 380) on behalf of Respondent filed on 01-DEC-2016
- 2016-12-01 Halifax Memorandum to file from Elizabeth Caverly, Director, dated 01-DEC-2016 The HFX Registry in receipt of the Respondent's R.380 subs in response to the Appellant's R.380 subs, which were sent to Court for Directions re: filing. The Court has not yet issued Directions regarding their filing. The Respondent indicated they were served with the A's subs on 25-NOV-2016. placed on file.
22 2016-11-21 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 21-NOV-2016 confirming service of doc.21 on the respondent by priority mail on 21-NOV-2016 filed on 21-NOV-2016
21 2016-11-21 Ottawa Submissions (Rule 380) on behalf of Appellant filed on 21-NOV-2016
- 2016-11-21 Fredericton Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 21-NOV-2016 Today, I received the Response by the Appellant to the Notice of Status Review with proof of service under the Order issued by Justice Pelletier on 17-OCT-2016. It seems the document is late according to the time limit specified in R.382.3(1). Document sent to Court for directions. placed on file.
- 2016-10-18 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Appellant with respect to document 17. placed on file on 18-OCT-2016
- 2016-10-17 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Respondent with respect to the Notice of Status Review filed 17-OCT-2016. placed on file on 17-OCT-2016
17 2016-10-17 Ottawa Notice of Status Review by The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier to the parties and their solicitors requiring the Appellant to show cause by written submissions why this appeal should not be dismissed for delay Filed on 17-OCT-2016 cc's sent to parties
- 2016-10-13 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 13-OCT-2016 re: Status Review to be issued
16 2016-08-11 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 11-AUG-2016 confirming service of Doc. 15 on the respondent by mail on 10-AUG-2016 filed on 11-AUG-2016
15 2016-08-11 Fredericton Appeal Book consisting of 1 volume(s) prepared by the appellant filed on 11-AUG-2016 3 judges' copies stored in Ottawa
- 2016-07-06 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties by way of reply e-mail with respect to Order of the Court (Stratas J.A.) dated 4-JUL-2016 placed on file on 06-JUL-2016
14 2016-07-05 Ottawa Order dated 04-JUL-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Stratas Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to the motion / document number 7 Result: dismissed Appellant to prepare Appeal within 60 days of present Order Filed on 05-JUL-2016 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 295 page(s) 353 - 354
- 2016-06-29 Fredericton Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 29-JUN-2016 The Appellant advised me today over the phone that he will not file a Reply to the Motion in response to Motion doc.7 placed on file.
- 2016-06-29 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 29-JUN-2016 re: for direction regarding appellant's letter dated May 25, 2016 and motion doc. 7
13 2016-06-20 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Motion Record (Doc. 12) upon Appellant by courier on 20-JUN-2016 filed on 20-JUN-2016
12 2016-06-20 Halifax Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 7 containing the following original document(s): 11 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Respondent filed on 20-JUN-2016
11 2016-06-20 Halifax Written submissions contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the respondent in opposition to motion doc. 7 filed on 20-JUN-2016
10 2016-06-10 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 10-JUN-2016 confirming service of doc.9(doc.7,8,id18) on the respondent by priority mail on 10-JUN-2016 filed on 10-JUN-2016
9 2016-06-10 Fredericton Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 7 8 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Appellant filed on 10-JUN-2016
- 2016-06-10 Fredericton Draft Order concerning the motion / document number doc.7 received on 10-JUN-2016
8 2016-06-10 Fredericton Written representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant in support of doc.7 filed on 10-JUN-2016
7 2016-06-10 Fredericton Notice of motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant to determine content of appeal book in writing filed on 10-JUN-2016 DRAFT ORDER received
6 2016-05-26 Fredericton Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 26-MAY-2016 confirming service of doc.5 on the respondent by priority mail on 26-MAY-2016 filed on 26-MAY-2016
5 2016-05-26 Fredericton Letter from the appellant dated 25-MAY-2016 Letter of proposal of the content of the Appeal book as per Order dated 12-MAY-2016 by Justice Trudel filed on 26-MAY-2016
- 2016-05-13 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties (by email) with respect to the Order of the Court dated May 12, 2016 placed on file on 13-MAY-2016
4 2016-05-13 Ottawa Order dated 12-MAY-2016 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Trudel Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Appellant dated 27-APR-2016 re: requesting an oral hearing of his Motion Result: dismissed The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Respondent dated 05-MAY-2016 requesting that this Appeal be case managed Result: dismissed "... The appellant shall, in the next 10 days serve and file his proposal as to teh contents of the Appeal Book unless he agrees with the respondent's proposal contained in a letter dated March 3, 2016; if the parties disagree, the appellant shall serve and file a proper Notice of Motion under Rule 369 to request that the Court determine teh contents of the Appeal Book....." Filed on 13-MAY-2016 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 295 page(s) 29 - 31
- 2016-05-11 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 11-MAY-2016 re: forwarding the Appellant's letter dated April 27, 2016, and the Respondent's letter dated May 5, 2016, for the Court's consideration.
- 2016-05-05 Halifax Letter from the respondent dated 05-MAY-2016 "....The Respondent requests that this appeal be case managed. ....We anticipate that, without case management, there will be considerable procedural difficulties that will prevent the Appeal from proceeding in the most expeditious and least expensive manner." received on 05-MAY-2016
- 2016-04-27 Fredericton Letter from the appellant dated 27-APR-2016 Informal request letter R.35 for oral motion. Attached to the letter, a draft notice of motion received on 27-APR-2016
- 2016-03-08 Fredericton Copy of a fascimile of a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant discussing the content of an Appeal book and the requirements of the Respondent concerning the agreement of the Appeal book dated 03-MAR-2016 received on 08-MAR-2016 by email from Appellant
- 2016-03-01 Fredericton Copy of a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant dated February 24, 2016 discussing about the appeal and cross-appeal placed on file on 01-MAR-2016 Original placed on Court File No. A-48-16
- 2016-02-18 Ottawa Memorandum to file from the Registry of the FCA dated 18-FEB-2016 transmitting a copy of the Notice of Cross-Appeal to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau and the Actions section of the FC. placed on file.
3 2016-02-12 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Notice of Cross-Appeal upon Appellant by courier on 12-FEB-2016 filed on 12-FEB-2016
2 2016-02-12 Halifax Notice of cross-appeal on behalf of the respondent against a decision of Southcott, J. dated January 25, 2016 filed on 12-FEB-2016
- 2016-02-09 Ottawa Memorandum to file from the FCA Registry dated 09-FEB-2016 transmitting a copy of doc 1. to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau, and the actions section of the Federal Court. placed on file.
- 2016-02-04 Fredericton Letter sent by Registry on 04-FEB-2016 to the respondent R.133 service letter Copy placed on file.
1 2016-02-04 Fredericton Notice of Appeal and 2 copies filed on 04-FEB-2016 against a decision of Justice Southcott dated January 25th, 2016 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 2017-10-30 22:16
However yesterday on All Hallows Eve a very wicked little Newfy lawyer who I now label as Johnny "Never been Good" Furey who is a former Assistant Attorney General surprised me with an evil last minute submission Trust that we had a very serious hoedown that has yet to be recorded in the PUBLIC RECORD but many smiling bastards will receive a copy of the transcript as soon as I get it.
http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/browserecord.php?-action=browse&-recid=560
Matter No.
0375
Title NB Power 2018-2019 General Rate Application / Énergie NB Demande générale de tarifs pour 2018-2019
Description Electricity
Summary
Status Open
Decisions
Date Title
Exhibits
Exhibit No Producing Party Title
NBP1.01 NBP Notice of Application
NBP1.02 NBP Avis de Requête
NBP1.03 NBP Evidence
NBP1.04 NBP Élements Probants
NBP1.05 NBP Attachment 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 Forecast Variance 2
NBP1.06 NBP Pièces jointes 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 F Var2
NBP1.07 NBP Attachment 2 - 2016-17 Actuals vs 2016-17 EUB Approved Budget Variance 3
NBP1.08 NBP Pièces jointes 2 - Analyse de l’écart 3 – Revenus pour 2016-2017 par rapport au budget approuvé par la Commision pour 2016-2017
NBP1.09 NBP Appendix A i. NB Power Proposed Rates and Schedules (sections N and O)
NBP1.10 NBP Annexe A ii. Baremes et politiques des tariffs (N et O)
NBP1.11 NBP Appendix C i. NB Power 10-Year Plan 2019-2028
NBP1.12 NBP Appendix C ii. 2016-18 10 Year Plan Tables
NBP1.13 NBP Appendix C iii. Plan decennal d'Energie NB 2019-2028
NBP1.14 NBP Appendix C iv. Plan décennal -Tableaux pour les exercices 2017 et 2018
NBP1.15 NBP Appendix D i. NB Power Strategic Plan 2011-2040
NBP1.16 NBP Appendix D ii. Plan stratégique d’Énergie NB 2011-2040
NBP1.17 NBP Appendix E - Mandate Letter 2015
NBP1.18 NBP Appendix F i. 2016 -17 NB Power Audited Financial Statements
NBP1.19 NBP Annexe F ii. États financiers consolidés 2016-2017
NBP1.20 NBP Appendix G - 2018-19 NB Power Budgeted Financial Statements
NBP1.21 NBP Appendix H - Detailed Financial Statements - Redacted
NBP1.22 NBP Appendix I - Continuous Improvement and Continuity Schedule of Process Improvement
NBP1.23 NBP Appendix J - Human Resources Overview
NBP1.24 NBP Appendix J ii. - Ressources Humaines D'Entreprise
NBP1.25 NBP Appendix K - Continuity Schedule of Regular and Succession Positions
NBP1.26 NBP Appendix L - Organizational Charts
NBP1.27 NBP Appendix M - Nuclear Depreciation Detail
NBP1.28 NBP Appendix N i. PLNGS Regulatory Deferral Continuity Schedule
NBP1.29 NBP Appendix N ii. PDVSA Regulatory Deferral Continuity Schedule
NBP1.30 NBP Appendix N iii. AFUDC Continuity Schedule
NBP1.31 NBP Appendix N iv. AMI Regulatory Deferral Continuity Schedule
NBP1.32 NBP Appendix O - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report
NBP1.33 NBP Appendix P - Generation Reliability Statistics March 2016
NBP1.34 NBP Appendix Q - Generation Reliability Statistics March 2017
NBP1.35 NBP Appendix R - Generation Reliability Statistics May 2017
NBP1.36 NBP Appendix S i. 2018-2027 Load Forecast Update
NBP1.37 NBP Annexe S ii. Mise à jour sur la prévision des charges de 2018-2027
NBP1.38 NBP Appendix T - Load Forecast Model (If you have difficulty opening this file, please contact the Board at (506) 658-2504 or by email at general@nbeub.ca. / Si vous avez de la difficulté à ouvrir ce fichier, veuillez communiquer avec la Commission au (506) 658-2504 ou par courriel à general@cespnb.ca)
NBP1.39 NBP Appendix U - 2018-19 Revenue Forecast Model
NBP1.40 NBP Appendix V - 2018-19 NB Power Capital Projects
NBP1.41 NBP Appendix W - Baseline and Solar Lease Study
NBP1.42 NBP Appendix X i AMI Project Investment Rationale
NBP1.43 NBP Appendix X ii. Infrastructure de mesure avancée (IMA)
NBP1.44 NBP Appendix Y i. AMI Project Investment Rationale Appendix G Part i
NBP1.45 NBP Appendix Y ii. AMI Project Investment Rationale Appendix G Part ii
NBP1.46 NBP Appendix Y iii. AMI Project Investment Rationale Appendix G Part iii
NBP1.47 NBP Appendix Y iv. AMI Project Investment Rationale Appendix G Part iv
NBP1.48 NBP Appendix Z - AMI Capital Project Investment Rationale Model
NBP1.49 NBP Annexe AA ii. Plan de GAD 2018-2019 - 2020-2021
NBP1.50 NBP Appendix AA i. Three Year Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan 2019-2021
NBP1.51 NBP Appendix AB - DSM EMV Plan 2019-2021
NBP1.52 NBP Appendix AC - DSM Plan 2019-2021 Technical Reference Manual
NBP1.53 NBP Appendix AD - DSM 2019-2021 Model
NBP1.54 NBP Appendix AE - DSM Program Evaluations 2015-16
NBP1.55 NBP Appendix AF - DSM Program Evaluations 2016-17
NBP1.56 NBP Appendix AG i. DSM Plan 2016-17 Actuals
NBP1.57 NBP Annexe AG ii. Plan de gestion de la demande - Mise a jour sur les initiatives 2016-2017
NBP1.58 NBP Appendix AH - NB Power DSM Long-term Forecast Methodology
NBP1.59 NBP Appendix AI i. F-03 Commodity Price FX Risk Policy
NBP1.60 NBP Annexe AI ii. F-03 Politique de risque des prix de la marchandise
NBP1.61 NBP Appendix AI iii. NBEMC 02 - Market Risk Policy
NBP1.62 NBP Appendix AI iv. NBEMC 03 - Commodity Price FX Risk Policy
NBP1.63 NBP Appendix AJ - Financial Risk Policies Compliance Audit report for NB Power 2017
NBP1.64 NBP Appendix AK - Financial Risk Policies Compliance Audit report for NB Energy Marketing 2017
NBP1.65 NBP Appendix AL i EUB Approved 2017-18 CCAS-NBP Exibit 5.11 updated with Board Approved 2017-18 Revenue Requirement
NBP1.66 NBP Appendix AL ii 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2017-18 Rates-Based on Board approved 2017-18 Cost Allocation Methodology
NBP1.67 NBP Appendix AL iii 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at Proposed 2018-19 Diff Rates-Based on Board approved 2017-18 CA Method
NBP1.68 NBP Appendix AL iv 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2 Percent Uniform Rates-Based on Board approved 2017-18 CA Methodology
NBP1.69 NBP Appendix AL v 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2017-18 Rates - Based on proposed 2018-19 CA Methodology
NBP1.70 NBP Appendix AL vi 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at Proposed 2018-19 Diff Rates - Based on proposed 2018-19 CA Methodology
NBP1.71 NBP Appendix AM - NB Power CCAS Update for the 2018-19 GRA by Elenchus Research Associates
NBP1.72 NBP Appendix AM i 2018-19 CCAS 3.3 Reference Model (RR at Uniform Rates)
NBP1.73 NBP Appendix AM ii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.3 LIREPP Energy and Demand
NBP1.74 NBP Appendix AM iii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 1 No-LIREPP
NBP1.75 NBP Appendix AM iv 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 2 Adjustment Removed
NBP1.76 NBP Appendix AM ix 2018-19 CCAS 3.7 Baseline Model
NBP1.77 NBP Appendix AM v 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 3 With Adjustment
NBP1.78 NBP Appendix AM vi 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 4 Recommended
NBP1.79 NBP Appendix AM vii 2018-19 CCAS 3.5 Edmundston Adj
NBP1.80 NBP Appendix AM viii 2018-19 CCAS 3.6 CP Change
NBP1.81 NBP Appendix AM x 2018-19 CCAS 4.1 Regulatory Deferrals
NBP1.82 NBP Appendix AM xi 2018-19 CCAS 4.2 Taxes
NBP1.83 NBP Appendix AM xii 2018-19 CCAS 4.3 Sub-Func of Dist O and M
NBP1.84 NBP Appendix AM xiii 2018-19 CCAS 4.4 Class of Dist O and M
NBP1.85 NBP Appendix AM xiv 2018-19 CCAS 4.5 Class of Poles-Conductors Depr
NBP1.86 NBP Appendix AM xv 2018-19 CCAS 4.6 EE to Customer
NBP1.87 NBP Appendix AM xvi 2018-19 CCAS 4.7 EE removed from Wholesale
NBP1.88 NBP Appendix AM xvii 2018-19 CCAS 4.8 Recommended Model
NBP1.89 NBP Appendix AN - Class Cost Allocation Study Methodology Description
NBP1.90 NBP Appendix AO - Rate Design Model
NBP1.91 NBP Appendix AP - Proof of Revenue
NBP1.92 NBP Appendix AQ i. NB Power Rates Schedules and Policies Manual (6 July 2017)
NBP1.93 NBP Appendix AQ ii. Baremes et politiques des tarifs de l'Energie Nouveau-Brunswick (6 juillet 2017)
NBP1.94 NBP Appendix AR i. Draft GRA Minimum Filing Requirements Reference Table
NBP1.95 NBP Appendix AR ii. Tableau de référence de l’ébauche des exigences minimales des éléments de preuve
NBP1.96 NBP Appendix AS i. NB Power Regulatory Compliance Filings (MFR 3)
NBP1.97 NBP Appendix AS ii. Déclarations de Confirmité en cours
NBP1.98 NBP Appendix AT Goals and Objectives
NBP1.99 NBP Appendix AU i. NB Power Annual Report 2016-17
NBP2.01 NBP Annexe AU ii. Rapport annuel d'Energie NB 2016-17
NBP2.02C NBP Appendix CONF A - Detailed Financial Statements - Confidential
NBP2.03C NBP Appendix CONF B - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report - Confidential - Restricted
NBP2.04C NBP Appendix CONF C - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report - Confidential Redacted
NBP2.05C NBP Appendix CONF D - Kent Hills Wind LP Wind Power PPA Amending Agreement - 2007 07 03 Confidential
NBP2.06C NBP Appendix CONF E - Kent Hills Wind LP Assignment and Novation Agreement - 2013 10 31 Confidential
NBP2.07C NBP Appendix CONF F - Kent Hills Wind LP Purchase of Wind Project Output - 2017 06 01 Confidential
NBP2.08C NBP Appendix CONF G - Kent Hills Wind LP Right of First Offer - 2017 06 01 Confidential
NBP2.09C NBP Appendix CONF H - Kent Hills Wind LP PPA Amending Agreement - 2017 06 01 Confidential
NBP2.10C NBP Appendix CONF I - Kent Hills Wind LP Assignment and Novation Agreement - 2017 10 02 Confidential
NBP2.11C NBP Appendix CONF J - Chaleur Regional Services Commission PPA - 2017 07 29 Confidential
NBP2.12C NBP Appendix CONF K - South East Regional Services Commission PPA - 2017 07 29 Confidential
NBP2.13C NBP Appendix CONF L - WKB Community Wind Farms PPA - 2017 08 07 Confidential
NBP3.01 NBP Affidavit of Publishing
Transcripts
Date Witness
Other Relevant Documents
Title Date
NB Power Objection to Intervener Status - David Amos 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix A 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix B 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix C 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix D 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix E 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix F 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix G 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix H 10/30/2017
NB Power Notice of Objection - Appendix I 10/30/2017
NBEUB Draft Filing Schedule - REVISED / Ébauche de l'horaire de dépot de la CESPNB - RÉVISION 10/30/2017
Document List / Liste des documents 10/30/2017
Pre Hearing Participants - Participants pour l'audience préalable à l'audience 10/30/2017
NB Power - Notice of Objection reference document - Brooks v Fredericton City Police Force et al 10/30/2017
Intervener Request - Enbridge Gas New Brunswick 10/26/2017
Intervener Request Clarification - Sussex Sharing Club 10/24/2017
Intervener Request - Utilities Municipal 10/20/2017
Intervener Request - New Clear Free Solutions 10/20/2017
Demande de statut d'intervenant - Roger Richard 10/18/2017
Board Staff email - Draft Schedule / Courriel du personnel de la Commision - ébauche de l'horaire 10/18/2017
NBEUB Draft Filing Schedule / Ébauche de l'horaire de dépot de la CESPNB 10/18/2017
NBEUB Draft Schedule Clarification / Clarification de l'ébauche de l'horaire de la CESPNB 10/18/2017
Intervener Request - Sussex Sharing Club 10/18/2017
Intervener Request - J.D. Irving, Limited 10/17/2017
J.D. Irving, Limited cover letter re: Intervener Request. 10/17/2017
Intervener Request - Gerald Bourque 10/12/2017
Document List / Liste des documents 10/06/2017
NB Power’s Draft of the Filing and Hearing Schedule / Ébauche de l’horaire de l’audience et de dépôt d’Énergie NB 10/06/2017
Order 10/06/2017
Ordonnance 10/06/2017
Notice 10/06/2017
Avis 10/06/2017
Intervener Request - David Amos 10/06/2017
NB Power Cover Letter re Filing of Application 10/05/2017
Posted by MotorcycleManiacLtd at 05:25
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.
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
|
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/the-prime-of-brian-mulroney/article998044/
The prime of Brian Mulroney
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published April 30, 2004 Updated
April 19, 2018
Palm Beach, Fla., is a town where a
resident's net worth is summed up in the capsule description that invariably is
tacked onto their name in the local society column. As in, pharmaceutical heir
Laddie Merck, Cuban-American sugar king Pepe Fanjul, oil billionaire David
Koch, or Kate Ford, the widow of Henry Ford II.
Former Canadian prime minister and
globetrotting rainmaker Brian Mulroney - a Palm Beach homeowner since 1997 -
fits in marvellously here.
So it was, on a Friday evening in
March, that a select group of the island community's seasonal and permanent
inhabitants - among them Paul Desmarais, Conrad Black, Koch, Fanjul and Ford -
descended on the ritzy Club Colette on Peruvian Avenue. The occasion that
brought them to the private dinner club (which was once owned by Aldo Gucci, a
detail too delicious to ignore for anyone familiar with Mulroney's shoe
fixation) was the boy from Baie Comeau's 65th birthday party.
They were joined by an illustrious
list of out-of-towners. George Bush Sr. flew over from Houston. Gustavo
Cisneros, Venezuela's richest man, came up from Caracas. Dallas-based leveraged
buyout wizard Tom Hicks popped over from his retreat in the Caribbean. So did
Irish media baron Tony O'Reilly, who flew in on his Gulfstream III. Pierre Karl
Péladeau came down from Montreal, Gerry Schwartz and Galen Weston from Toronto.
Joan Rivers, a family friend through
shared charitable causes, kept everyone amused. "Mila is so
attractive," the comedienne, in five-inch rhinestone heels, cracked,
"that the first time I met her, I thought she was the second wife."
Mila Mulroney, in a silver lamé Dolce & Gabbana creation, blushed.
If Mulroney's 65th birthday was the
official reason for the celebration, there were other excuses to party.
The year had been a very good one
for Mulroney, his best since leaving office in 1993. The legacy he so longed
for was finally taking shape. It began with an April 17, 2003, letter from RCMP
Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli informing Mulroney that he had been fully
exonerated in the Airbus affair. It continued in June when he was named the
second-best prime minister of the past 50 years by an elite panel of 28
academics (Lester Pearson was first). Then, in February, journalist Stevie
Cameron was exposed as an RCMP informant in the Airbus case. Cameron, who had
spent much of her career trying to tear down Mulroney's, ended up seriously
compromising her own. Mulroney enjoyed the irony in that.
So did his friends. Those assembled
at the party - the main event during a weekend of soirées, brunches and
cocktails that Cisneros would label "a whole Brian Mulroney festival"
- had never doubted his innocence nor underestimated his political achievements.
To them, Mulroney was an icon. They'd seen him spend the previous decade
building a hugely successful international business career, amassing much
wealth and even greater influence than he held as prime minister.
Bush, Desmarais, Cisneros, Hicks,
O'Reilly, Péladeau and others - people with names like Rockefeller, Kissinger,
Munk and Forbes - had been eager helpmates in Mulroney's ascent to the top of
the global business establishment. As Mulroney expanded and consolidated his
worldwide network - flitting from his Montreal base at the law firm of Ogilvy
Renault to Beijing, Brussels, Cape Town, Moscow, Dublin, Dallas, Paris, London,
New York, Washington and Caracas - he never forgot his friends. For them, he
opened doors. To them, he offered his counsel. With him, they got richer.
"I'm an unabashed Mulroney
fan," says Bush, the former U.S. president and father of the Oval Office's
current occupant. "If he said, 'This is something you oughta do,' that
would get more than a cursory consideration from me." Adds Cisneros, who
controls one of the world's biggest private conglomerates, with 72 companies in
more than 80 countries: "Brian Mulroney is a walking encyclopedia. He
knows all the issues better than anybody else and he can give you better advice
than anyone else. He also has a wealth of contacts. If you need to talk to the
president of Argentina or some other country, Brian knows them."
The late-afternoon light streams
into Brian Mulroney's office on the 12th floor of a McGill College Avenue
office tower. On his desk is a thick stack of paper that constitutes the
memoirs he has written in longhand, about to be sent to his publisher,
McClelland & Stewart; hanging behind the imposing bureau, a portrait of
Mila and the kids. At the other end of the office is a large collection of
framed photographs. There's Brian and the Bushes. Brian and Bill Clinton. Brian
and Francois Mitterrand. Brian and Ronald Reagan. More Bushes. Brian and the
Pope. Brian and Ted Kennedy. Another Bush.
Wearing a classic double-breasted
blue pinstripe suit, the former prime minister looks rested and, on the eve of
becoming a senior citizen, healthier than he has in years. In contrast to the
dour and haggard man with the tired voice that Canadians remember from his
final years in office, this Brian Mulroney is a chipper 65. Which is
astonishing, considering the schedule he keeps. He has shown no inclination to
slow down, despite a scare in 2002 when doctors detected an irregular
heartbeat. Mulroney, who taps a pouch of Equal into his coffee, insists he is
in fine shape and exercises regularly.
"The truth of the matter is
that I work as hard today, if not harder, than I did when I was 35," he
says. "But I'm having a great time doing it. I love it."
In the five weeks leading up to this
interview, Mulroney has been in more airports than many people see in a
lifetime. There was a jaunt with Desmarais to the White House for meetings with
President George W. Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. A trip
to South Africa for a meeting of the global advisory board of Independent News
and Media Group - the Tony O'Reilly-controlled communications giant that owns
some 200 newspapers - and a courtesy call on an old friend, Nelson Mandela. New
York was next. There, he attended board meetings at Trizec Properties Inc.,
Peter Munk's U.S. real estate company, and Cendant Corp., the massive
franchiser that owns such name brands as Century 21 and Coldwell Banker in real
estate, Avis and Budget in car rentals, and Days Inn and Ramada in hotels. A
couple of days later, Mulroney was in Toronto for a meeting of the Barrick Gold
Corp. board. Then to Palm Beach to speak at an American Ireland Fund dinner
with O'Reilly, who is chairman of the international Ireland Funds. After that,
back to New York for a board meeting at America Online Latin America Inc., a
Cisneros-controlled joint venture with Time Warner Inc.
To Montreal, then, for a day of
meetings as co-chair of a committee struck by Quebec Premier Jean Charest to
study Montreal's plan for two new superhospitals. The next couple of days at
home were devoted to work at Quebecor Inc., where Mulroney is on the board of
both the parent holding company and subsidiary Quebecor Media. Then a day in
New York as chairman of printing behemoth Quebecor World Inc. Mulroney ended
the month as the star attraction brought in by Steve Forbes - Mulroney is the
chairman of Forbes Global, the international edition of Forbes - to entertain
high-powered CEOs on the Forbes yacht, the Highlander, off the Florida coast.
Mulroney sits on 16 corporate boards
or international advisory boards. He almost added another to the long list last
fall, when he emerged as a key figure in New York hedge fund Cerberus Capital
Management's bid to become struggling Air Canada's saviour. Mulroney, the
fund's senior legal adviser, would have become the airline's chairman had the
Cerberus offer been accepted. (Air Canada instead opted for the bid by Hong
Kong-Canadian businessman Victor Li. But by early April, Li had all but pulled
out, paving the way for a revival of the Cerberus offer.) Mulroney was
recruited for the Cerberus gig by Dan Quayle, George Bush Sr.'s vice-president,
who heads the hedge fund's international advisory board.
Such boards - which began popping up
in the mid-1990s and are now a must-have for a global company - are a
networker's dream. Mulroney sits on IABs with, among others, former U.S.
secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, philanthropist David Rockefeller
and Clinton insider Vernon Jordan. "You meet them socially, you become
friendly," Mulroney explains. "When they're looking for lawyers in
Canada, they'll call me. And vice versa. Or the CEO of one of the companies I'm
involved with will call me and say,
'We're looking at spinning off a division
in Europe. Do you think Hicks Muse [the Dallas-based leveraged buyout firm
where Mulroney is a senior counsellor]would be interested?' " Mulroney's
international advisory seats include J.P. Morgan Chase, the second-largest U.S.
bank; Desmarais's Power Corp. of Canada; Frank Stronach's Magna International
Inc.; General Enterprise Management Services Ltd., a Hong Kong-based investment
fund run by former Li Ka-shing lieutenant Simon Murray; and China International
Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), a huge state-owned conglomerate that
specializes in joint ventures with non-Chinese partners. What do they expect
from the former prime minister? "Geo-strategic evaluations," he
offers. Most of his advice is highly confidential. Mulroney would never say if,
for example, he has told CITIC whether he thinks George W. is toast in
November. But he probably has.
His board work, Mulroney insists, is
still secondary to his activities as a senior partner at Ogilvy Renault.
"This is the cornerstone of my existence," he says of the firm he
rejoined almost immediately after leaving office in 1993. "The promotion
of the interests of Ogilvy Renault and its clients is my principal
preoccupation."
Mulroney's name alone on the
letterhead draws business to the firm. But he doesn't leave it at that.
"He's always available to partners who like to introduce him to clients or
CEOs or give talks to small groups," says Ogilvy Renault managing partner
Raymond Crevier. "It's amazing the attraction he has. I've seen him
talking to clients over dinner and they just stop everything and listen. He's
got this Irish charm. In the past 15 years, [hiring Mulroney]is the best thing
we've done as a firm."
Mulroney's job at Ogilvy Renault
carries no salary. Nor does he take credit for the business he generates for
the firm. When he snags a client, he immediately refers the catch to another
partner. And when Mulroney chalks up billable hours on behalf of the firm, he
credits it to the account of an associate. Mulroney's only remuneration for his
activities at Ogilvy Renault comes from his share of the profits he derives as
a partner.
Brian Mulroney was introduced to the
realities of global business long before most of us. He was born in a town that
owed its very existence to trade and border-crossing capital. The North Shore
town of Baie Comeau was built a few years before Mulroney's birth in 1939 by
Colonel Robert McCormick, to supply newsprint for his Chicago Tribune and New
York Daily News. Mulroney's father, Ben, an electrician, went to work for
McCormick's Quebec North Shore Paper Co., and the family settled on the English
side of town, which was normally reserved for managers. Most residents of Baie
Comeau stuck to their own. But young Brian easily straddled the town's two
cultures, at ease with the working-class francophones with whom he fraternized
at Catholic school and unintimidated by management-class Americans who ran the
mill.
McCormick liked to fish near the
town he had built. He also liked to be entertained. So it was that, on one of
his fishing excursions to the North Shore, McCormick's PR man sought out a
seven-year-old reputed to be a fine singer. Mulroney was escorted to Le Manoir,
the hotel McCormick had built. Perched atop a piano, he asked McCormick what he
wanted to hear. "And he said that his favourite song was Dearie but that I
wouldn't know it because how could a kid from Baie Comeau be expected to know
that. But I knew it and I sang it, and others as well," Mulroney told
biographer L. Ian MacDonald in 1984. "And they gave me $50 and put me in
the car and drove me home. And I gave it to my mother and she just about had
cardiac arrest."
This anecdote has been appropriated
by Mulroney's fans and critics alike. The fans say it illustrates the magnetism
of his personality. The detractors say it shows how Mulroney was, from an early
age, all too eager to please the rich and powerful.
To adopt the latter thesis, one has
to assume a shallowness - not in Mulroney, but in those who have succumbed to his
charms. Desmarais, Bush, Munk and Cisneros are a lot of things, but shallow
they are not.
Mulroney was no stranger to the
business world when he left politics. A gifted labour lawyer before entering
public life in 1983, he had already established a successful business career
that, while not making him rich, had certainly made him influential in Montreal
financial circles. Two men above all had been the young Mulroney's mentors.
They were Paul Desmarais and Pierre P{Zcaron}ladeau.
In 1964, 25-year-old Mulroney, fresh
out of Laval University law school, joined the Montreal firm of Howard, Cate,
Ogilvy. His salary was $5,200 a year. It was the same year that Péladeau, then
39, started the tabloid Journal de Montréal during a strike at La Presse,
Quebec's dominant broadsheet. In 1967, the 40-year-old Desmarais bought La
Presse; P{Zcaron}ladeau and Desmarais instantly became rival media barons. Like
the papers they owned, the two men were a study in contrasts: Desmarais was
understated, debonair and ultrafederalist; P{Zcaron}
Péladeau was boisterous,
funny-looking and a Quebec nationalist. Yet both men took to Mulroney.
When workers at Le Journal de
Montr{Zcaron}al unionized in the late 1960s, Péladeau called on Mulroney to
negotiate the first collective agreement. In 1971, with La Presse once again
embroiled in a lengthy labour conflict, Desmarais, too, turned to Mulroney. By
that time, the dispute was already into its ninth month, and Péladeau's Journal
was making deep inroads into La Presse's readership. "So, I thought of
Brian Mulroney and said, 'We'll see whether he can be helpful,' "
Desmarais recalls. "He was very helpful. He related well to the
negotiating teams, both ours and the labour side. I think he had some influence
on the labour leaders, such as [late Quebec Federation of Labour
president]Louis Laberge. He got to know them and they trusted him." Within
a week of Mulroney's involvement, the conflict was settled.
After that, Desmarais and his Power
Corp. lieutenants regularly sought Mulroney's counsel. "We used him as a
labour lawyer from time to time. But really he was more of a friend you would
talk to whenever you had an idea you needed to bounce off someone,"
Desmarais says. "He's a pretty wise guy. He knew a lot of people, too. He
got around a lot - more than I ever did."
Neither Desmarais nor Péladeau
seemed to hold it against Mulroney that he had befriended, and simultaneously
worked for, their chief competitor. Such was the extent of Mulroney's charm and
legal skill. The same ease with competing interests - labour, management,
Liberals, Péquistes - was evident in Mulroney's star turn on the Cliche inquiry
into the construction industry in 1974.
Shortly after his first,
unsuccessful bid for the Progressive Conservative leadership in 1976, Mulroney
moved from a supporting role in the business world to the corner office, as
president of the Iron Ore Co. of Canada, a subsidiary of Cleveland-based Hanna
Mining. The position enabled Mulroney to not only demonstrate his managerial
skill - he turned a troubled company into a highly profitable one and improved
its labour relations record despite closing its Schefferville, Que., operations
- but also to extend south his already considerable network. Iron Ore's parent
had a high-powered board, and Mulroney made sure all of its members took note
of his achievements.
By the time he had decided, for the
second time, to make the leap from business to politics, Mulroney had
accumulated no fewer than 10 notable directorships, including Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce, Standard Broadcasting (then controlled by Conrad Black) and
Montreal's Ritz-Carlton Hotel, his favourite haunt.
His ability to win over almost
anyone was the hallmark of Mulroney's quest for 24 Sussex Drive. But charm in
itself is no match for the centrifugal tensions of actually being in power in
Canada. Without the binding force of his ambition and personality, the
coalition that Mulroney put together would split into no less than three
parties - Reform, Bloc Quebécois and a PC rump. The Prime Minister's office was
not, by the end, the most satisfying fit for Mulroney's abilities.
It was clear he was not headed for
retirement when, at barely 54, he stepped down in 1993. Besides, he needed the
money. As Iron Ore president, Mulroney evidently never earned more than
$400,000 a year. For a decade he had lived on a politician's paltry salary, and
his pension on leaving office barely topped $33,000. With four
U.S.-college-bound children to support, having himself grown accustomed to
finer tastes, and with a new $1.67-million Westmount home and $1 million in
renovations to pay for, Mulroney's lifestyle required a salary in seven digits.
Perhaps it was this pressure that
led him, shortly after leaving office, to accept a $300,000 consulting contract
from Karlheinz Schreiber, the German-Canadian businessman whose name would come
back to haunt Mulroney in the Airbus case. At the time, though, Schreiber had
not been accused of any illegal activities. In the end, Mulroney didn't need
Schreiber's business. His pro-market agenda as prime minister between 1984 and
1993 - centred around free trade, privatization and tax reform - had
ingratiated him to big business and helped usher in an era where global
networkers were indispensable to any ambitious company. As a recently retired
head of state, Mulroney was on a first-name basis with some of the most
powerful men and women on the planet. Combined with his people skills and head
for business - he could actually read a balance sheet - he was an inviting
catch for almost any major transnational corporation. The offers poured in.
Shortly before he left office,
Mulroney lunched alone with a single guest. Peter Munk barely knew the outgoing
prime minister, but had nevertheless requested the téte-a-téte. A couple of
years earlier, Mulroney had made an indelible impression on the Hungarian-born
entrepreneur after Munk stunned Bay Street with a $31.6-million gain on the
stock options he held in his American Barrick Resources Corp. (now Barrick Gold
Corp.). It was, at the time, the biggest payday ever recorded by a Canadian
corporate boss. The Barrick chairman was pilloried in the media, accused of
unabashed greed. But Munk - who had founded Barrick in 1983 and helped its
stock price soar 11-fold from 1986 to 1991 - figured he deserved the reward. So
did Mulroney. "I was in my office and the phone rang," Munk recalls.
"Someone on the other end said, 'This is the office of the Prime
Minister.' " Munk thought it was a joke. When a distinctive baritone voice
came on the line, he realized it wasn't. "I just read about this coup you
made and I want you to know that what Canada needs is many more Peter
Munks," Mulroney declared. "I'm proud of you."
By 1993, Munk's mining empire was
expanding rapidly around the globe, particularly in Latin America. Mulroney,
who had just negotiated Canada's entry into the North American Free Trade
Agreement, knew the area intimately. Munk naturally figured the former prime
minister would be an excellent addition to Barrick's board, and that of its
largest shareholder, Munk's Horsham Corp. "No one on our board knows the
quality or quantity of people globally that Brian does," Munk says now.
"He has got this unbelievable network that he has spent years and years
developing. And he works enormously hard to maintain those contacts. That's why
those contacts are so alive and useful. He wasn't born with them. He's not
royalty."
Mulroney joined the boards of
Barrick and Horsham in November, 1993, and was immediately granted options to
buy 250,000 shares in each Munk firm. The options grant was unprecedented for a
non-executive director of a Canadian company, and led shareholder-rights
proponent William Riedl to wonder, "Are Mulroney's contacts worth that
much?"
They were - Paul Desmarais, for
instance. Munk and Desmarais had been acquaintances, but hardly anything so
intimate as business partners. Mulroney changed that. The result was a
Barrick-Power joint venture to develop gold deposits in China. Of course, the
partnership would have been fruitless without the co-operation of the Chinese
government. In early 1994, Mulroney took Munk to China, and asked Desmarais to
come along. Desmarais was no slouch when it came to influencing the Chinese,
having done business in the Communist colossus for years. Mulroney, though, had
his own ins. The trio's dinner partner one night during the trip ended up being
none other than Zhu Rongji, then head of the Chinese central bank, without
whose accord access to the country's gold deposits would have been impossible.
"The next day we met the Premier," says a still-stunned Munk.
"This is a good example of how Brian uses his connections and contacts and
turns them into international business opportunities for the companies he's
involved with."
Another example: In 1994, Mulroney
met with Argentinian President Carlos Menem and his Chilean counterpart,
Eduardo Frei. Barrick had acquired mining concessions that straddled the
historically contentious border between the two countries. Developing the mines
promised to be a logistical nightmare, given laws that required miners to
descend a mountain 48 kilometres and report to a border crossing before
entering the part of the mine located in the neighbouring country. Mulroney,
Munk says, got the countries to hammer out an agreement that allowed the Barrick
workers to cross the border freely. "That was of enormous importance to
us," says Munk.
In early 1995, Mulroney asked his
friend George Bush to work for Barrick. Bush was reluctant. "I said, 'I
have a policy, Brian. I don't go on [corporate]boards,' " explains the
former U.S. president. "But Brian said, 'You wouldn't be on the board;
you'll be a [senior honorary]adviser. I think this will be a wonderful
experience for you.' And he was right." In 1996, Bush and Mulroney lobbied
Indonesian President Suharto on behalf of Barrick's bid to win control of the
Busang gold deposit in Borneo that had been discovered by Bre-X Minerals Ltd.
(Is this what Munk meant when, according to Titans author Peter C. Newman, he
once said Mulroney "knows every dictator in the world on a first-name
basis?" Munk denies having made the comment.) Suharto, however, had a
last-minute change of heart, and gave the concession to another company. That
was a lucky thing for Barrick, Bush and Mulroney: What was supposed to be the world's
biggest gold deposit ended up being the world's biggest mining fraud.
By 1998, Mulroney was crisscrossing
Europe on Barrick's behalf. He was hired by the gold industry's World Gold
Council to persuade European central banks to stop dumping their stocks of the
precious metal willy-nilly into the market. Seconded by former Bank of Canada
governor John Crow, Mulroney lobbied the continent's most powerful central
bankers, presidents and prime ministers. The result was an agreement that is
credited with stabilizing the metal's price.
Barrick occupied much of Mulroney's
time during his early years out of office. But he earned far fatter paycheques
from his speaking engagements during that period. Despite his oratorial
prowess, Mulroney had no desire when he retired from politics to keep making
speeches. When he was approached by Harry Rhoads Jr. of the Washington Speakers
Bureau - the same agency that then represented Ronald Reagan and Margaret
Thatcher - Mulroney initially declined. It was Mila Mulroney, her husband says,
who made him change his mind. "She said, 'Listen, you've made 11,000
speeches as a politician for nothing. Now it's time to get out and make a
couple that you get paid for.' " Mulroney did far more than that. He took
on dozens of engagements during his first few years out of office, talking
largely about trade and leadership issues. At $45,000 (U.S.) a pop - plus
expenses - Mulroney pocketed as much as $1 million (U.S.) a year from the gigs.
By late 1995, however, Mulroney
would have neither the time nor the inclination to do much public speaking. His
energies were consumed by a much more important endeavour - clearing his name.
His reputation in Canada was already in tatters when he left office, one of the
most unpopular prime ministers in history. But any chance of restoring his name
seemed dead when it leaked out in 1995 that Mulroney had been named by the
Canadian government in a letter requesting assistance from Swiss authorities in
an RCMP investigation. The Mounties were looking into alleged illegal
commissions paid on then government-owned Air Canada's $1.8-billion purchase of
Airbus aircraft. The letter referred to "an ongoing scheme by Mr.
Mulroney, [lobbyist Frank]Moores and [Karlheinz]Schreiber to defraud the
Canadian government of millions of dollars."
News of the letter risked
diminishing Mulroney's poor public standing even further. It also risked
killing his business career.
"My wife and family and I had
some very difficult times," Mulroney says. "There were some very sad
moments when we were fighting off these accusations against this army of
lawyers and experts financed by the taxpayers of Canada." But fight is
exactly what Mulroney did, launching an unprecedented $50-million libel suit
against the federal government. "Had the Chrétien government not tried to
ruin my family and I with those false and malicious allegations, you would
never have heard a peep out of me," says Mulroney, who had consciously
kept a low profile in Canada after leaving office. "But I had to defend
myself, the honour of my family and the good name of my government."
Mulroney had effectively called the
Chrétien government's bluff. In January, 1997, the two parties reached an
out-of-court settlement that saw Ottawa acknowledge that the allegations were
unjustified and cover Mulroney's legal and public relations fees - a $2-million
tab. Far more important than the money, however, was the apology that went with
it. Still, it would be six more years before the RCMP closed its investigation
in the case and fully exonerated Mulroney.
This "Kafkaesque
nightmare" behind him, Mulroney is circumspect about the whole affair.
Maybe he is saving the best for his memoirs. But he cannot resist turning the
knife ever so subtly: "I've made it a practice for many years never to
comment on the work of the police or their informants," he says with
evident satisfaction. Then, turning to a cryptic quote from his political idol
John Diefenbaker, he announces, "It is a long road that has no ash
cans." Mulroney laughs heartily at this. Translation: What goes around,
comes around.
When the Airbus allegations became
public, Mulroney sent offers of resignation to Ogilvy Renault and all of the
companies on whose boards he sat. They were rejected. Indeed, Archer Daniels
Midland called on Mulroney to help it restore its own reputation.
Mulroney's appointment to the ADM
board, his first after leaving office, seemed curious. It was a massive
Midwestern agribusiness that made staples like vegetable oil and corn syrup.
Mulroney had no expertise in that field. The company was known as a personal
fiefdom of CEO Dwayne Andreas, who had run it with an iron fist for a quarter
of a century, affording limitless opportunities for career advancement to his
own family.
Andreas knew Paul Desmarais, and sat
on Power's international advisory board. Another member of Power's board - and
ADM's board - was Mulroney pal Ross Johnson, the Canadian-born ex-CEO of RJR
Nabisco, whose spectacular attempt to take over his own company had been
famously chronicled in Barbarians at the Gate.
But if personal relationships helped
him land a job, Mulroney proved that they did not stop him from exercising his
fiduciary duty. In July, 1995, ADM tapped Mulroney and former company chairman
John Daniels to co-chair a board committee to craft the company's response to
price-fixing allegations. The result was a massive overhaul of ADM's board and
the departure of several Andreas cronies, including his son and heir apparent
Michael Andreas, who later spent time in jail in connection with the scandal.
Mulroney was the key figure in negotiating a settlement on the price-fixing
charges that saw ADM pay $100 million (U.S.), a record antitrust fine at the
time. Mulroney went head-to-head with Dwayne Andreas, then 78, who resisted the
radical strategy, especially the sacrificing of his son.
Mulroney's work was lauded by
analysts, who described him as "an important agent of change." The
day the settlement was announced, ADM's shares hit a 52-week high. Mulroney had
earned high regard within ADM too. After Dwayne Andreas stepped down in 1997,
his successor, his nephew Allen Andreas, brought Mulroney into his inner circle
as a member of his executive committee. "Brian was instrumental in guiding
us during a period when we brought in a new code of ethics and revamped the
entire structure of the board to meet new requirements that have since been put
in place by the Securities and Exchange Commission," Allen Andreas says.
Dwayne Andreas was not the only
high-powered CEO that Mulroney met through Paul Desmarais. In 1996, Mulroney
went to a party at Desmarais's Montreal home that was also attended by Gustavo
Cisneros, who sat with the host on the international advisory board of the
Chase Manhattan Bank. Mulroney and Cisneros hit it off immediately. The two
shared a common passion: free trade. "I had always had the greatest
respect for Brian Mulroney as prime minister," says Cisneros, whose
personal wealth is estimated at $4.6 billion (U.S.) and whose empire includes
Venezuela's largest broadcaster, Peru's largest brewer and the Miss Venezuela
contest. "Brian understood more than anybody else how important free trade
was to Canadian prosperity. And I had been very involved in free trade
discussions from a Latin-American point of view. So, I knew all about
him."
Mulroney and Cisneros stayed in
touch. The following year, when Cisneros was looking for directors for his
Latin-American pay-TV company Ibero-American Media Partners Ltd., he thought of
his new Canadian friend. Eventually, the friendship grew to include both men's
wives and children. In 1999, they all went on a two-week safari in southern
Africa. It was there that Cisneros learned just how plugged-in Mulroney really
was. "He slept with a radio," Cisneros laughs. "So, in the
morning, we would get a briefing on everything that was happening in the world.
We were the most well-informed safari ever."
Mulroney recommended Cisneros - a
fierce opponent of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has accused the media
baron of complicity in the country's short-lived 2002 coup d'état - to another
friend, Peter Munk. Cisneros joined Barrick's international advisory board in
2003, and its board of directors later that year.
Cisneros's partner in Ibero-American
was Dallas-based leveraged buyout wizard Tom Hicks. By the late 1990s, his
firm, Hicks Muse Tate & Furst Inc., had done deals worth more than $50
billion (U.S.) during its 15-year existence. Hicks also had become a major
figure in pro sports, after personally buying the Dallas Stars and the Texas
Rangers. The latter purchase in 1998 enabled Hicks's friend George W. Bush,
then governor of Texas, to pocket a profit of at least $15 million (U.S.) on
his initial $600,000 investment in the team.
After Cisneros recruited Mulroney
for the Ibero-American board, Hicks asked the ex-prime minister to sit on Hicks
Muse's Latin-American strategy board, scouting out investments and offering
advice about the region's volatile political climate. Eventually, Mulroney
became the chairman of that board and of the firm's European strategy board.
Over dinner in Chile, in 2000, Hicks asked Mulroney to join the firm on a
full-time basis. Mulroney declined, instead opting to become a senior
counsellor with an undisclosed equity interest in the firm. In addition to
identifying new investment opportunities, Mulroney was charged with recruiting
high-profile names to the firm's advisory boards. His first catch? Henry
Kissinger. "Brian's proven to be just what we hoped for. He's a sage
adviser and he's got great judgment," says Hicks, citing Mulroney's
involvement in Hicks Muse's $406-million purchase this year, with two
bank-owned equity funds, of Canadian cable company Persona Inc.
Hicks also credits Mulroney with
saving his partnership with Cisneros. After the 2001 merger of Ibero-American
with El Sitio Inc., an Argentinian internet company, Cisneros and Hicks reached
an impasse while renegotiating the terms of their ownership in the merged
company, Claxson Interactive Group Inc. Mulroney summoned Hicks and Cisneros to
a meeting at the latter's New York home. "It was one of those things that
could have gone either way," says Hicks. "But because Brian had the
trust of both sides, we were able to reach an agreement to redo our partnership
very effectively."
Just what is the Mulroney magic that
turns antagonistic rivals into concordant, if sometimes reluctant, partners? As
a labour lawyer, Mulroney settled more disputes than a thousand schoolyard
monitors put together. As a politician, he built the most impressive coalition
in Canadian history. And now, as a business globetrotter, he continues to play
matchmaker and marriage counsellor with uncanny success. "Instead of
focusing only on the problem at hand, he focuses on human nature and the way
people react," says his long-time confidant and former deputy chief of
staff in Ottawa, Luc Lavoie, now an executive vice-president at Quebecor Inc.
"He never bullies people and he makes sure that both sides in any
negotiation come out of it with their dignity intact. And he never wears out.
He can go on for hours, always with his eye on the ball."
Grupo Cisneros and Independent News
are the lesser-known, in Canada, of the three media leviathans with which
Mulroney is most closely associated. In early 1997, Mulroney reunited with his
mentor, Pierre Péladeau, joining the board of Quebecor Printing Inc. Already
overburdened with his other corporate and charitable obligations, Mulroney
expected his involvement with the Péladeaus to end there. Fate would determine
otherwise.
On Dec. 2 of that year, Pierre
Péladeau suffered a massive heart attack. He lay in a coma for three weeks
before his death on Christmas Eve. His sons, Pierre Karl, then 36, and Erik,
42, were ill-prepared for the loss of their father. Pierre Péladeau had left no
clear succession plan in place. Chaos could have ensued. "A couple of
months after Pierre died, the boys asked me to have lunch with them at le Club
Saint-Denis," Mulroney says. "With the loss of their dad, they felt
it might be helpful to have someone around with some grey in his hair, someone
who knew the family, who knew the culture of the business, and who wouldn't be
pushed around by anybody."
For the first couple of years, the
relationship was mostly conducted through Ogilvy Renault, Quebecor's law firm.
Mulroney offered advice or opened doors as requested. He was instrumental in
Quebecor's first major foray into the English-language media business, the
gutsy $983-million purchase of the Sun newspaper chain in 1998. And he played
matchmaker the following year in Quebecor Printing's $1.4-billion (U.S.) bid
for U.S. giant World Color Press Inc. New York leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts owned a quarter of World Color's stock, and was reluctant to
tender its shares.
"At a certain point we faced a deal-breaker,"
Pierre Karl P{Zcaron}ladeau says. "Because of his personal contact with
Henry Kravis, Mr. Mulroney was able to get the parties together and get the
transaction done."
Since then, Mulroney's role at
Quebecor has grown exponentially. In 1999, he became chairman of Sun Media,
stepping in as interim CEO of the country's second-biggest newspaper chain when
his friend Paul Godfrey left in early 2000. Later in 2000, Mulroney defused an
explosive battle between Péladeau and John Weaver, the CEO of newsprint
producer Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.
Mulroney also put Péladeau and Ted
Rogers back on speaking terms. In the venomous battle for Quebec cable giant
Groupe Vid{Zcaron}otron Lt{Zcaron}e in 2000, Quebecor killed a friendly deal
between Vidéotron's controlling shareholder, Andr{Zcaron} Chagnon, and Rogers
Communications Inc. by enlisting the deep pockets of the Caisse de dépot et
placement du Québec and going to court to quash a lock-up agreement between
Chagnon and Rogers. Mulroney used an invitation to his daughter Caroline's
wedding in September, 2000, to get his friends Rogers and Péladeau to bury the
hatchet and begin thinking about deals they could do together. Rogers's
cellphone unit has since become one of the principal sponsors of Star Académie,
the mega-hit reality show that runs on Quebecor's TVA network, acquired in the
Vidéotron deal.
Whether or not Péladeau views
Mulroney as a father figure, there is no denying how deeply he values the older
man's counsel. Despite their closeness, Péladeau remains unflinchingly
deferential toward Mulroney, always addressing him with the polite
"vous" and never the more familiar "tu." "Pierre Karl
says 'vous' to a lot of people, but there are not many whom he has known for a
long time that he still calls 'Mr.,' " says Péladeau's partner, TV
producer and host Julie Snyder. "Mr. Mulroney represents for him the past,
present and future. He is a reassuring presence, because he was a friend of his
father and his father had so much respect for Mr. Mulroney."
Péladeau is not the only jeune loup
Mulroney has taken under his wing. He is a big backer of New Brunswick Premier
Bernard Lord, and has dispensed career advice to the ambitious 38-year-old, who
considered running for the federal Conservative Party leadership this year.
"He wouldn't push me one way or the other," Lord says. "But he
told me what to expect." In anticipation of Lord's eventual rise to the
national stage,
Mulroney has also helped the young premier to network. In July,
2002, he organized a retreat with Lord at Larry's Gulch, a provincial
government-owned lodge on the Restigouche River, famous for its salmon fishing.
The guest list included Péladeau, Paul Desmarais Jr., then-Barrick CEO Randall
Oliphant, Tom Hicks, Allen Andreas and a special guest--the elder George Bush.
The latter remembers the weekend fondly, although, he laments, "the
promise was to get some fish, which we got none of." Adds Lord: "What
struck me in those few days was the real friendship [Mulroney]had with these
people, especially Mr. Bush."
Bush, Hicks, Cisneros, Desmarais,
Péladeau, O'Reilly, Andreas, Munk, Forbes. This is the core of Mulroney's
international network. It remains so solid, Desmarais Sr. explains,
"because he works at his relationship with people. If you read the newspapers,
you'd think nobody likes Brian Mulroney. But the fact is, he is much more than
Gucci shoes. He's an extraordinary man."
He has also become an
extraordinarily wealthy one. Mulroney has pocketed millions in stock option
gains over the past decade. A cursory glance at a few recent management proxy
circulars indicates that he will get $200,000 (U.S.) this year as a director of
ADM, $188,000 (U.S.) at Cendant (where he holds 420,625 options and shares) and
a $75,000 (U.S.) director's fee at Barrick, in addition to an undisclosed
salary as chairman of the company's international advisory board. In the past,
Mulroney's consulting on Barrick's behalf has earned him an annual stipend of
as much as $462,000 (U.S.). Mulroney also holds 350,000 Barrick options. He
shares in the profits at Ogilvy Renault and owns equity in Hicks Muse Tate
& Furst. Were he a CEO, his annual take from all of his business activities
would likely place him near the top of the best-paid list.
And, at retirement age, he shows no
signs of slowing down. Next month, Mulroney will be in New York, Texas,
Beijing, Shanghai, London and Dublin on business. It's as if the past year,
marked by his exoneration in the Airbus affair and the reappraisal of his
legacy as prime minister, has energized Mulroney. Indeed, more than wealth, it
is recognition that the boy from Baie Comeau values most. "He enjoys the
contrast between where he came from and where he is today," says
Mulroney's friend Jonathan Deitcher, a Montreal stockbroker. "It makes
what he does more meaningful to him." Deitcher recalls a dinner in the
ballroom of the Chateau Frontenac hotel in Quebec City during the 1987 royal
visit.
Deitcher was eager to know what Mulroney was whispering to the Queen as
the two sat at the head table. He was telling her, his friend recounted, that
his father was one of the electricians who wired the room decades before.
Mulroney must have been imbued with
this same pride at his glittering party in Palm Beach. He had not invented a
past to gain a spot in the rarefied world of the rich. He had written the story
himself.
Mulroney's Network
Paul Desmarais (MONTREAL): The Power Corp. patriarch is the
source point of Mulroney's global web
Pierre Karl Péladeau (MONTREAL):
Mulroney's longest and deepest involvement is with Quebecor, lately as counsel
to hot-tempered "PKP"
Allen Andreas (DECATUR, ILL.): The
Andreas clan called on Mulroney to clean up after a scandal at agribusiness
giant Archer Daniels Midland
Steve Forbes (NEW YORK): The
publisher made Mulroney chairman of Forbes Global
George Bush Sr. (HOUSTON): He and
Mulroney bonded during the Reagan years, and later collaborated on NAFTA
Tom Hicks (DALLAS): Mulroney is a
senior counsellor to the LBO wizard's firm, Hicks Muse Tate & Furst
Gustavo Cisneros (CARACAS): The
Latin Rupert Murdoch esteems Mulroney's advice at AOL Latin America
Tony O'Reilly (DUBLIN): Mulroney is
on the global advisory board of the media baron's Independent News and Media
Group
Peter Munk (SWITZERLAND/ TORONTO):
His Barrick Gold was a focus of Mulroney's first post-PM work.
Munk relies on Mulroney for contacts
and problem-solving around the world
Re: Fwd: RE A legal state known as "functus" Perhaps you, Governor General Johnston and Commissioner Paulson and many members of the RCMP should review pages 1 and 4 one document ASAP EH Minister Goodale? (AOL)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:43 PMRe: Now Wikimedia knows something the RCMP abd all of you know about the FBI and I (Please Note / S.V.P. Noter (Out of Office /Absent du bureau))
David Amos<motomaniac333@gmail.com> | Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:11 AM |
| To: "macpherson.don" <macpherson.don@dailygleaner.com>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, justicedonedirtcheap <justicedonedirtcheap@gmail.com>, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "marie-claude.blais" <marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, "david.alward" <david.alward@gnb.ca>, "david.kelly" <david.kelly@fredericton.ca>, "j.kroes" <j.kroes@interpol.int> | |
| Cc: "Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Wayne.Lang" <Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Leanne.Fitch" <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, "leanne.murray" <leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.com> | |
Monday, July 16, 2012 Will Journalist Don MacPherson from the Fredericton Daily Gleaner Twitt from the Courtroom??? I went there today after hearing the News that Journalists will be allowed to send out News to the Public of the action within the Justice Building!!! I was waiting for the Irving Journalist to leave the Courtroom until I was approached by a member of the Fredericton Police Force. I got upset just being around this Turncoat!!!! I quickly left the Building!!! Will blog this Jerk later!!! Stay tuned!!! Anyway.....never mind this guy!!! I am happy these journalists will be allowed the twitt from the Courtroom. I hope that Don MacPherson Twitts!!!! He'll have thousands of followers... < Including moi > :) Posted by Charles LeBlanc at 5:29:00 PM | |
David Amos<motomaniac333@gmail.com> | Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:39 AM |
| To: marc.bernard@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, info-en-q@wikimedia.org, "Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, police <police@fredericton.ca>, police <police@edmundston.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, andremurraynow <andremurraynow@gmail.com>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, "mclaughlin.heather" <mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com>, tvannah <tvannah@valleyadvocate.com>, "yvon.godin.a1" <yvon.godin.a1@parl.gc.ca> | |
| ||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment