http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/anne-bertrand-defends-report-s-findings-into-larry-s-gulch-1.3139550
Anne Bertrand defends report's findings into Larry's Gulch
Information commissioner did not recommend charges for 2 public servants who altered fishing lodge guest list
CBC News
Posted: Jul 06, 2015 10:59 AM AT
Last Updated: Jul 06, 2015 10:59 AM AT
Access To Information and Privacy Commissioner Anne
Bertrand says consent of injured workers must always be obtained. (CBC)
Larry's Gulch is the taxpayer-funded fishing lodge on the Restigouche River. (CBC)
Anne Bertrand said in an interview on Monday that she feels the altering of the list is on "low end of wrongdoing."
If something similar happened again, however, she would recommend charges, she said.
"My job is not to go out for blood and it is not a witch hunt. My job is to uncover what happened and to recommend corrective measures," said Bertrand.
"I don't expect everyone to agree with me … but I have carefully weighed the pros and cons for months on this case. I really believe, genuinely, believe the focus should not have been on charges, but rather on discussion and [to] put everyone on notice.
Bertrand described a level of "arrogance" of the two former deputy ministers in modifying the list. But she said she has no evidence to suggest they knew they were breaking the law.
The report was prompted after it was revealed that Murray Guy, a former editor of the Moncton Times & Transcript, was invited to Larry's Gulch by Daniel Allain, who was the chief executive officer of NB Liquor at the time, and how steps were subsequently taken to conceal Guy's trip.
Bertrand's report concluded the officials in question were acting on a request by Guy, who wanted some of his personal information removed from the list before it was made public by the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture under a right to information request in March of 2014.
The report does not name the two deputy ministers involved. It identifies them only by their positions — the deputy minister of tourism and the deputy minister of communications.
Bertrand found the deputy minister of tourism, in concert with the deputy minister for communications, directed department staff to alter information found in an official government record.
"In other words, in order to hide the truth," the report states.
Guy, who was the newspaper's assistant managing editor, resigned following an internal investigation launched by Brunswick News.
The information commissioner's report was released on Thursday.
The taxpayer-funded Larry's Gulch fishing lodge is located on the Restigouche River in northwestern New Brunswick.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:50:40 -0600
Subject: Lets see if I can have a little luck getting curious Yankees talking about Alberta and the Maritimes on GCN before the writs are dropped in PEI, Newfoundland, Alberta and Federally
To: tlanigan@taxpayer.com, "jason.kenney"
Cc: David Amos
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Rivero
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:46:28 -1000
Subject: RE: Attn Michael Rivero RE My phone call today and the call
from Carol to the WRH Radio show 1-22-10 If I had known about her call
I know could have helped her with the IRS
To: David Amos
Do you have a website of your own?
Michael Rivero
Home Baked Entertainment, Aiea, Hawaii
Talk Radio, Peace Activism, & Visual FX during the slow season!
rivero@hbentertain.com rivero.info
Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:40:16 -0600
Subject: Attn Michael Rivero RE My phone call today and the call from
Carol to the WRH Radio show 1-22-10 If I had known about her call I
know could have helped her with the IRS
To: wrh@whatreallyhappened.com
Cc: David Amos
Good day
This is you
http://gcnlive.com/JW1D/index.php/showinfo?showCode=109
http://whatreallyhappened.com/#axzz3Ui4ZinLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGDt5mLixaY
Uploaded on Jan 23, 2010
Phone call from women who lost her veteran husband to cancer and had
her bank account seized by the IRS 2 days later
and this is me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY&index=10&list=UUy8EcN1vBqTMe8fjF6mKD6g
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.ca/2008/06/5-years-waiting-on-bank-fraud-payout.html
There is more info below about what really happened to me.
BTW I called into your talkshow right after a very evil Zionist spin
doctor in Alberta who claims to work for the Canadian government
published the blog below gloating about the results of the election in
Is Ra El. Ihope you study his blog closely and talk about his obvious
malice on your show sometime soon.
https://baconfatreport.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/the-jews-told-monkey-boy-barak-hussein-obama-to-fuck-himself/
FYI his real name is Barry Winters aka Mr Baconfat aka Seren I had his
longstanding Google blog removed on Oct 23rd of last year and he
immediately fired up a WordPress one the following day. .It was no
coincidence that he created his first blogs about me in April of 2009
right after I spoke to Dr Bill Deagle on GCN. That is the reason I did
not take up much of your time today other than to inform you of my
Tweets to you and the Feds.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
These are the tweets I sent you earlier today please follow the links
to verify what say is true
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/status/578163988510330880
Michael Rivero @WRH_Mike_Rivero Mar 16
HOW YOU BECAME A SLAVE TO THE BANKERS! http://ow.ly/xr3Kt #FED #ECB
#IMF #economy
Retweets 4
Favorite 1
Robert Briggs David Raymond Amos iErin Runaway Slave
9:05 PM - 16 Mar 2015 · Details
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
@WRH_Mike_Rivero @NewYorkFBI Please notice that the webcast &
transcript are missing from the US Congressional Record
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 9 hours ago
@WRH_Mike_Rivero The @NewYorkFBI & @EliotSpitzer Should never forget I
am the whistler-blower who caused the hearing
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 8 hours ago
@WRH_Mike_Rivero Fax # top of page 101 proves @NewYorkFBI were aware I
sued 3 Treasury Agents & many others in 2002
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 8 hours ago
@WRH_Mike_Rivero In 2005 While I was running for a seat in Parliament
again @IRSnews @NewYorkFBI @USDOJ played dumb
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259150072/Inspector-General-Treasury
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 7 hours ago
@WRH_Mike_Rivero In 2009 SEC Chair Mary Schapiro Insp Gen David Kotz
knew it @IRSnews @NewYorkFBI @USDOJ @SEC_News
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.ca/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 7 hours ago
@WRH_Mike_Rivero @IRSnews @NewYorkFBI @USDOJ @SEC_News @RCMPNS
Obviously GCN knew it too
https://archive.org/details/DrBillDeagleAndINumberOne &
https://archive.org/details/DrBillDeagleAndINumberTwo
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos 6 hours ago
@WRH_Mike_Rivero @IRSnews @NewYorkFBI @USDOJ @SEC_News @RCMPNS
@pmharper If anyone wants to talk call 902 800 0369
http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
Some of my info found within the link above
> Hey
>
> As Harper sits and bullshits his cohorts in the Council of Foreign
> Relations in the Big Apple today I bet he was listening to what was
> happening with Obama and the IRS and Holder and his DOJ minions
> in Washington.
>
> Notice the Inspector General of the IRS Dudes within this old file?
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/9092510/Chicago
>
> Everybody and his dog knows Harper knew about my battles with the US
> Treasury and Justice Depts way back when he was the boss of the
> opposition in Canada's Parliament. Two simple files easily found on
> the Internet cannot be argued.
>
> Notice how old the letter and Form 211 are?
>
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.ca/2008/06/5-years-waiting-on-bank-fraud-payout.html
>
> Here the Inspector Generals calling me 7 years ago?
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>
> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Chief Counsel, Treasury.
> Inspector General for Tax Administration, (202) 622-4068.
>
> When Teddy bitches about polticians using the IRS to attack their
> enemies because he knows it true because he helped Bush the IRS
> against me when Obama was just a State Senator .
>
> The proof was when I sent him the documents that came along with the letter
> found on page 13 of this old file Teddy Baby Olson quit as Solicitor General.
>
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf
>
> Harper and every body else knows It was no coincidence that I sent the
> lawyers Olson as Solicitior General, Ferguson as the co chair of the
> Federal Reserve Bank, and J Strom Thurmond Jr the youngest US
> Attorney the same pile of documents on April Fools Day 2004.
>
> The sad but terrible truth is that legions of cops, lawyers polticians
> and bureaucrats in Canada and the USA knew about the US Secret Service
> coming to my home after dark on April Fools Day 2003 bearing false
> allegations of a presidential threat and threatening to use their
> implied right to use exta ordinary rendition against me as a non
> citizen less than two weeks after the needless War in Iraq began and
> no WMD were ever found.
>
> You can bet dimes to dollars i called some Yankee Inspector Generals
> (starting with 202 622 4068) and reminded them that I am still alive
> and kicking and reminding the world of their malicious incompetence
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> PS Below you can review some emails I sent you and your Yankee cohorts
> such asTeddy Baby Olson before Obama was reelected EH Harper? In truth
> I would rather settle in confidence with Obama then sue the Hell out
> of the CROWN and the Holy See Trust that the evil old Judge Bastarache
> has known why for a very long time.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Amos"
> To: "Rob Talach"
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>
> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
> a lot to you
>
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
> Bernadine Chapman??
> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca, webo
>
> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1
>
> Clemet1
>
>
>
> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, David Amos
> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1"
>
>
> "Wayne.Lang"
>
>
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm
>
> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf
>
> From: Gilles Moreau
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
> Constable Peddle???
> To: David Amos
>
> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>
> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
> Director General
> HR Transformation
> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>
> Tel 613-843-6039
> Cel 613-818-6947
>
> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>
> tél 613-843-6039
> cel 613-818-6947
> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>>>> David Amos
>
> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it
> yet
>
> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
>
> Here is why
>
> http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2
>
> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
> following file
>
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
>
> NONE of you should have assisted in the cover up of MURDER CORRECT???
>
> http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2011/2011-06-22/html/sor-dors122-eng.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Amos"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:45 PM
> Subject: Question # 1 who the hell is Rob Renaus and di Robert Jone
> and Jaques Poitra and Alan white etc forward you my latest emails
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Edith Cody-Rice
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:53:07 -0500
> Subject: Calls and E-mails to CBC
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
> Cc: Rob Renaud
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> CBC personnel have contacted me concerning your calls and e-mails to
> them. As you are threatening legal action, would you kindly direct any
> further calls or correspondence to me. Other CBC personnel will not
> respond further to your correspondence or calls.
>
>
> Edith Cody-Rice
> Senior Legal Counsel
> Premier Conseiller juridique
> CBC/Radio-Canada
> 181 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1K9
> Postal Address: P.O. Box 3220, Station C, Ottawa K1Y 1E4
> Tel: (613) 288-6164
> Cell: (613) 720-5185
> Fax/ Télécopieur (613) 288-6279
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE
> This communication is subject to solicitor/client privilege and
> contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to
> whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, other
> distribution of this communication
> or taking any action on its contents is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete this message without reading, copying or forwarding it to
> anyone.
>
> AVIS IMPORTANT
> La présente communication est assujettie au privilège du secret
> professionnel de l'avocat et renferme des renseignements confidentiels
> intéressant uniquement leur destinataire. Il est interdit de
> divulguer, de copier ou de distribuer cette communication par quelque
> moyen que ce soit ou de donner suite à son contenu sans y être
> autorisé. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez nous en
> avertir immédiatement et le supprimer en évitant de le lire, de le
> copier ou de le transmettre à qui que ce soit.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
> the USDOJ for me will ya?
> To: RBauer
> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith
>
>
>
>
>
> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, David Amos
> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
>
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
>
> QSLS Politics
> By Location Visit Detail
> Visit 29,419
> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
> ISP US Dept of Justice
> Location Continent : North America
> Country : United States (Facts)
> State : District of Columbia
> City : Washington
> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
> Language English (U.S.) en-us
> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
> DI60SP1001)
> Javascript version 1.3
> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
> Color Depth : 32 bits
> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
> Visit Length 0 seconds
> Page Views 1
> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg
> Search Engine google.com
> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
> Visit Entry Page
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
> Visit Exit Page
> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
> Out Click
> Time Zone UTC-5:00
> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
> Visit Number 29,419
>
>
> From: Ed Pilkington
> Subject: GUARDIAN
> To: myson333@yahoo.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011, 11:42 AM
>
> hi
>
> here's my email and my cell number is below
>
> all best
>
> Ed
>
> --
> Ed Pilkington
> New York bureau chief
> The Guardian
> www.guardian.co.uk
> twitter.com/Edpilkington
>
> Cell: 646 704 1264
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit guardian.co.uk - newspaper of the year
> www.guardian.co.uk www.observer.co.uk
>
> On your mobile, visit m.guardian.co.uk or download the Guardian
> iPhone app www.guardian.co.uk/iphone
>
> To save up to 30% when you subscribe to the Guardian and the Observer
> visit www.guardian.co.uk/subscriber
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail and all attachments are confidential and may also
> be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify
> the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
> Do not disclose the contents to another person. You may not use
> the information for any purpose, or store, or copy, it in any way.
>
> Guardian News & Media Limited is not liable for any computer
> viruses or other material transmitted with or as part of this
> e-mail. You should employ virus checking software.
>
> Guardian News & Media Limited
>
> A member of Guardian Media Group plc
> Registered Office
> PO Box 68164
> Kings Place
> 90 York Way
> London
> N1P 2AP
>
> Registered in England Number 908396
>
> THE GUARDIAN MUST REMEMBER ME EH EDDY BABY???
>
> Click on this link
>
> http://50states.ning.com/video/rcmp-sussex-new-brunswick
>
> OR SCROLL DOWN TO ASSURE YOURSELF THAT WIKILEAKS OR THE CROWN CORPS
> KNOWN AS THE CBC AND THE RCMP TO NAME ONLY THREE CAN NEVER DENY THAT
> THEY DON'T KNOW ALL ABOUT MEAN OLD ME AND MY CONCERNS
>
> HOWCOME FOR 10 YEARS PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE USA CANADA ICELAND
> ENGLAND AND ALL THE OTHERS WITHIN "COALITION OF THE WILLING" ETC
> IGNORED THE FACT THAT I HAVE HAD MANY YANKEE WIRETAP TAPES THAT COULD
> HAVE IMPEACHED GEORGEY BOY BUSH AND HIS COHORTS LONG BEFORE THE
> PATRIOT ACT OR THE WAR ON IRAQ BEGAN???
>
> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>
>
> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
> Senator Arlen Specter
> United States Senate
> Committee on the Judiciary
> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Mr. Specter:
>
> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
> raised in the attached letter.
>
> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>
> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>
> Very truly yours,
> Barry A. Bachrach
> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>
--- On Tue, 3/13/12, David Amos
From: David Amos
Subject: Yo Mr Higgs Seems that GNB reads my emails after qutiing time when your Irving bosses want you to EH?
To: "news"
Cc: "occupyfredericton"
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 5:59 PM
| QSLS Politics By Location > Visit Detail Visit 26,137 | |||||||||||||||||
| [<<] [>>] | |||||||||||||||||
| Domain Name | GNB.CA ? (Canada) | ||||||||||||||||
| IP Address | 142.139.0.# (Province of New Brunswick) | ||||||||||||||||
| ISP | Province of New Brunswick | ||||||||||||||||
| Location |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Language | English (U.S.) en-us | ||||||||||||||||
| Operating System | Microsoft WinNT | ||||||||||||||||
| Browser | Internet Explorer 8.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.3) | ||||||||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Monitor |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Time of Visit | Mar 13 2012 8:10:34 pm | ||||||||||||||||
| Last Page View | Mar 13 2012 8:21:17 pm | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length | 10 minutes 43 seconds | ||||||||||||||||
| Page Views | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Referring URL | |||||||||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | http://qslspolitics....-and-fiat-money.html | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | http://qslspolitics....-and-fiat-money.html | ||||||||||||||||
| Out Click | |||||||||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-4:00 | ||||||||||||||||
| Visitor's Time | Mar 13 2012 3:10:34 pm | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Number | 26,137 | ||||||||||||||||
| QSLS Politics By Location > Visit Detail Visit 26,138 | |||||||||||||||||
| [<<] [>>] | |||||||||||||||||
| Domain Name | GNB.CA ? (Canada) | ||||||||||||||||
| IP Address | 142.139.0.# (Province of New Brunswick) | ||||||||||||||||
| ISP | Province of New Brunswick | ||||||||||||||||
| Location |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Language | English (U.S.) en-us | ||||||||||||||||
| Operating System | Microsoft WinNT | ||||||||||||||||
| Browser | Internet Explorer 8.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; GTB7.3; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.3) | ||||||||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Monitor |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Time of Visit | Mar 13 2012 9:42:23 pm | ||||||||||||||||
| Last Page View | Mar 13 2012 9:42:23 pm | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length | 0 seconds | ||||||||||||||||
| Page Views | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Referring URL | |||||||||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | http://qslspolitics....-and-fiat-money.html | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | http://qslspolitics....-and-fiat-money.html | ||||||||||||||||
| Out Click | |||||||||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-4:00 | ||||||||||||||||
| Visitor's Time | Mar 13 2012 4:42:23 pm | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Number | 26,138 | ||||||||||||||||
From: David Amos
Subject: Yea right I would love to see Gisele and the Irvings write some more bullshit about the PPPS THEY BENEFIT FROM
To: "news"
Cc: "occupyfredericton"
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-pppiracy-uranium-oil-and-fiat-money.html
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Wishart, John" <wishart.john@dailygleaner.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:54:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Request for information As you put me in the
bcc line like I don't exist you should know that GNB and Fat Fred City
block my emails so they can try to ignore my demands
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office on Tuesday, March 13. For urgent matters,
please contact Opinion Page Editor Gisele McKnight at 458-6434. Emails
can be sent to news@dailygleaner.com.
From: David Amos
Subject: Re: FW: Request for information from the City of Fredericton
Cc: michael.ferguson@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, kim.macpherson@gnb.ca, chris.macpherson@fredericton.ca
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 2:31 PM
Ms Greene I won't play your
strange games with the truth
> From: Evelyn Greene
> Subject: FW: Request for information from the City of Fredericton
> To: news@dailygleaner.com
> Cc: michael.ferguson@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, kim.macpherson@gnb.ca, chris.macpherson@fredericton.ca
> Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 1:07 PM
>
> To: Ms. Heather McLaughlin and others: Is this
> what kind of representation we get for our tax
> dollars? I know you will never print anything I write,
> but your should.
>
> Evelyn Greene
>
> From: evelyngreene@live.ca
> To: access.information@gnb.ca
> CC: ndesrosiers@ccla.org; chris.macpherson@fredericton.ca;
> blaine.higgs@gnb.ca; kim.macpherson@gnb.ca;
> hubert.lacroix@cbc.ca; brad.woodside@fredericton.ca;
> thepurplevioletpress@gmail.com; oldmaison@yahoo.com;
> llewellyn.stephen@dailygleaner.com;
> lucie.dubois@rcmp-grc.gc.ca; bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca;
> wishart.john@dailygleaner.com; stephen.kelly@fredericton.ca;
> michael.bray@gnb.ca; paul.estey@fredericton.ca;
> barry.macknight@fredericton.ca
> Subject: RE: Request for information from the City of
> Fredericton
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:49:53 -0200
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #yiv7580120362 .yiv7580120362ExternalClass
> .yiv7580120362ecxhmmessage P
> {padding:0px;}
> #yiv7580120362 .yiv7580120362ExternalClass
> body.yiv7580120362ecxhmmessage
> {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
>
>
>
> Ms. Norah Kennedy: (Pls. copy Anne Bertrand and
> Mr. McNamara). I want this email answered please.
>
> And to: Mr. Stephen Kelly, City Council (please copy
> all council members on my behalf with thanks). Please
> confirm that you will be copying all council members and
> civic authority, Mr. Chris MacPherson.
>
> 1. Is this response a nasty joke? Are
> you or paper pusher Anne Bertrand, Privacy Commissioner,
> related to Brenda Knight, the City Clerk?
>
> 2. Has anyone ever gotten information this
> way? Would you please check and get back to me about
> this? Also, it appears you are working on my file
> again. In that regard, I recently met with
> mr. McNamara of your office who told me that Crown
> Corporations information can be found at "Service
> New Brunswick" much the same way as any company
> incorporated under the Company's Act, etc. Is this
> correct or not. If so, who do I contact at Service New
> Brunswick for this information as Mr. Charles MacAllister
> (Director) and Ms. Susan Baker say they do not
> deal whatsoever with Crown Corporations.
>
> 3. Please know that I recently went to City Hall to
> make a request to take the tampered video evidence to Mr.
> Chris MacPherson, the civic authority. I was met with
> abusive staff member, Brenda Knight, the City Clerk, who
> grabbed my arm and asked me to leave when I asked to leave a
> message with the mayor's secretary that Ms. Knight said
> City Hall had nothing to do with the police or the N.B.
> Police Commission; that they, the City deal with
> "pothole issues."
>
> 4. I was not allowed to take my video tape evidence
> before City Council as Ms. Knight refused me an audience
> with them.
>
> 5. Now you are suggesting that Ms. Knight has
> information to give me. I doubt it. I know all
> there is to know about potholes.
>
> 6. Today, I had a letter from Chief Barry McKnight
> confirming receipt of an email I sent Inspector Brent
> Blackmore, not Chief MacKnight, about the conduct
> of court liaison Cst. Paul Estey. Chief Barry
> MacKnight said he realized, after reading my letter to
> Inspector Blackmore that it might be a complaint I wish to
> lodge against Cst. Estey. Chief MacKnight
> is confirming that I can make an official complaint against
> Cst. Estey now.
>
> 7. I had an email from Inspector Brent Blackmore
> advising me never to contact him again.
>
> Please confirm receipt of this email and I look forward to
> your speedy response.
>
> Welcome to New Brunswick. The city of opportunity
> where Charles LeBlanc, the "blogger" had it
> right: "The pissing capital."
>
> Evelyn Greene
>
>
>
> Evelyn Greene
>
> > From:
> Access.Information@gnb.ca
> > To: evelyngreene@live.ca
> > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:51:13 -0300
> > Subject: Request for information from the City of
> Fredericton
> >
> > March 13, 2012
> >
> > Via email only:
> evelyngreene@live.ca
> >
> > Ms. Greene,
> >
> > Re: Request for Information from the City of
> Fredericton
> >
> > This is in response to your email of February 13th,
> 2012, in which you inquired about whether the Fredericton
> Police Force is subject to the Right to Information and
> Protection of Privacy Act.
> >
> > Please know that at this time, municipalities and local
> public bodies, such as the Fredericton Police Force, are not
> yet subject to the Right to Information and Protection of
> Privacy Act. To be helpful, however, we can indicate to you
> the steps required to make an informal request for that
> information directly to the City of Fredericton, although
> the request cannot be made under the Act at this time.
> >
> > Your request should be in writing, and please be sure
> to clearly indicate:
> >
> > · Your name and contact information (ex.
> mailing address, telephone number, and email address)
> >
> > · Sufficient details to identify the specific
> records you seek; and,
> >
> > · Whether you are asking to receive a paper
> copy of the records or an electronic copy.
> >
> > You may also contact the City’s Right to Information
> Coordinator, Brenda Knight, by telephone at (506) 460-2127
> or by email at
> cityclerk@fredericton.ca
> for further assistance.
> >
> > Again, please note that the Fredericton Police Force is
> not yet subject to the Right to Information and Protection
> of Privacy Act, but we hope that it can assist you with your
> informal request.
> >
> > Thank you for contacting our Office.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Norah Kennedy
> > Intake Officer
> >
> > Office of the Access to Information and Privacy
> Commissioner /
> > Commissariat à l'accès à l'information et à
> la protection de la vie privée
> >
> > 65 Regent, Suite/bureau 230
> > Fredericton NB E3B 7H8
> >
> > Telephone: 506.453.5965
> > Toll Free/Sans frais: 1.877.755.2811
> > Fax: 506.453.5963
> >
> > This e-mail communication (including any or all
> attachments) is intended only for the use of the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail, any use, review, retransmission,
> distribution, dissemination, copying, printing, or other use
> of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail, is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please contact the sender and delete the original and
> any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof,
> immediately. Your co-operation is appreciated.
> >
> > Le présent courriel (y compris toute pièce jointe)
> s'adresse uniquement à son destinataire, qu'il soit
> une personne ou un organisme, et pourrait comporter des
> renseignements privilégiés ou confidentiels. Si vous
> n'êtes pas le destinataire du courriel, il est interdit
> d'utiliser, de revoir, de retransmettre, de distribuer,
> de disséminer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel,
> d'agir en vous y fiant ou de vous en servir de toute
> autre façon. Si vous avez reçu le présent courriel par
> erreur, prière de communiquer avec l'expéditeur et
> d'éliminer l'original du courriel, ainsi que toute
> copie électronique ou imprimée de celui-ci,
> immédiatement. Nous sommes reconnaissants de votre
> collaboration.
>
>
https://cases.legal/en/act-ca1-51961.html
Greene
v. Province of New Brunswick et al
IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH
OF NEW BRUNSWICK
TRIAL DIVISION
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON
CITATION: Greene v.
Province of New Brunswick et al 2014 NBQB 168
DATE:
2014-06-30
DOCKET:
F/C/238/11
BETWEEN:
Evelyn Rebecca Greene
Plaintiff
-and-
Province of New Brunswick, Attorney
General for New Brunswick and Minister of Justice, Marie-Claude Blais, Bernard
Richard, Francois Levert, Anne Bertrand, Kelly Lamrock, Former Attorney General
for Province of New Brunswick, Madeleine Dube, Minister of Health, Mary
Schryer, Ken Ross, Charles Murray, Robert Trevors, Minister of Public Safety,
Kevin Mole, Asst. Deputy Minister Public Safety, Dick Isabelle, Director of
Policing for the Minister of Public Safety, Bruce Fitch, Horizon Health Network
(Zone 3) (a Regional Health Authority “B” of the Province of New Brunswick, Dr.
Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital, Medavie Inc., Medavie Blue Cross, Donald J.
Peters, Margaret Bannister & John Doe Son & His John Doe Friend,
College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, Dr. Ed Schollenberg, Dr.
Lisa Sutherland, Dr. Manoj Bhargava, Dr. Kulli Poder, Dr. Stephen Smith, Dr.
Paul Smythe, Dr. Robert Daigle, Dr. David Addleman, John Laidlaw, Matthew
Tweedie, Michael Connors, Nurses Association of New Brunswick, Kevin Symes,
Registrar Association of New Brunswick Licensed Practical Nurses, Association
of New Brunswick Licensed Practical Nurses, Nancy Lindsay, Michelle Smith,
Christa Morton, Nancy Chase, Anne Walsh, Andrea Gatto, Cheryl Mulholland, John
Doe Security Guard No 1, John Doe Security Guard No. 2, John Doe Police Officer
No 1, Eliza Margaret Drummond, Nicole Moore, Roger Labelle, Jill Cowie, Melody
Austin, Michelle Tizzard, Nicole Tupper, Anne Elgee, Giselle McKnight, Alan
Stephen, Pierre-Yves Julian, George McLellan, Dennis Boyce, Jennifer Marshall,
Chrystal Dunphy, Robin O'Hara, Ambulance New Brunswick Inc, Chris Hood,
Paramedic Association of New Brunswick, City of Fredericton, Barry MacKnight,
Nancy Rideout, Andrew Phillips, Darryl Carter, Sebastien Blanchette, Philip
Took, Stewart McKelvey, Clarence Bennett, Jane Doe Police Officer, John Doe
Police Officer (No. 2), Rod Borden, Mavis Hurley, Rod Borden, David Ferguson,
Michael Connors, Kevin Mole, Peter Seheult, Pierre Beaudoin, New Brunswick
Police Commission, Nancy Lindsay, David Ferguson, Greg Zed, Jean
Daigle,
Defendants
BEFORE:
Justice Peter S. Glennie
HEARING HELD:
Fredericton
DATE OF HEARING:
November 15, 2013
DATE OF DECISION:
June 30, 2014
APPEARANCES:
Evelyn Rebecca Greene on her own
behalf
David T. Hashey, Q.C. on behalf
of: Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.,
Melody Austin, Margaret Bannister,
Rod Borden, Dennis Boyce, Nancy Chase,
Jill Cowie, Jean Daigle, Dr. Everett
Chalmers Regional Hospital, Eliza Margaret Drummond, Chrystal Dunphy, David
Ferguson, Andrea Gatto, Horizon Health Network (Zone 3), Regional Health
Authority B of the Province of New Brunswick, Mavis Hurley, Roger Labelle, John
Laidlaw,Nancy Lindsay, Jennifer Marshall, Nicole Moore,
Christa Morton, Cheryl Mulholland,
Donald J. Peters, Michelle Smith, Michelle Tizzard, Nichole Tupper, Anne Walsh
and Greg Zed
John P. Barry, Q.C. on behalf
of: College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, Dr. Ed
Schollenberg and Dr. Lisa Sutherland
Frederick C. McElman, Q.C. on
behalf of: Pierre Beaudin, Michael Connors, Chris Hood, Francois Levert,
New Brunswick Police Commission, Nurses Association of New Brunswick, Paramedic
Association of New Brunswick, Bernard Richard, Peter Seheult and Anne Bertrand
Ronald J. Ashfield, Q.C. on behalf
of: Matthew Tweedie, Clarence Bennett and Stewart McKelvey
Daniel R. Theriault, Q.C. on behalf
of: Kevin Symes and Association of New Brunswick Licensed Practical
Nurses
William E. Gould on behalf of:
Province of New Brunswick, Attorney General for New Brunswick, Minister of
Justice, Marie-Claude Blais, Kelly Lamrock, Former Attorney General for the
Province of New Brunswick, Madeline Dube, Minister of Health,
Mary Schryer, Ken Ross, Charles
Murray, Robert Trevors, Minister of Public Safety, Kevin Mole, Assistant
Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Dick Isabelle, Director of Policing for the
Minister of Public Safety, Bruce Fitch and Elgee Giselle Millett
Catherine A. Fawcett on behalf
of: Dr. David Addleman, Dr. Manoj Bhargava,
Dr. Robert Daigle and Dr. Kulli
Poder
Leanne Murray on behalf of:
City of Fredericton, Barry McKnight,
Nancy Rideout, Andrew Phillips,
Darrell Carter, Sabastien Blanchett and Philip Toole
Sasha D. Morisset on behalf of:
Allen Stephen, Robin O'Hara, George McLellan, Pierre Yves Julien, Medavie Blue
Cross and Medavie Inc.
D E C I S I O N
GLENNIE, J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] By various
motions the defendants seek orders that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim
against them be struck out pursuant to Rule 27.09 of the Rules of Court
on the basis that it is plain and obvious on its face that the plaintiff's
action is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and is an abuse of the process of
the Court. Among the plaintiff's allegations is that certain of the
defendants tried to murder her so that she would not repeat her allegations
concerning corruption and a conspiracy involving Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.,
the police, and various New Brunswick government elected officials, employees
and agencies.
[2] The
defendants further seek orders that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim be
stayed or struck out pursuant to Rules 23.01(1) and (b) of the Rules of
Court for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
[3] For the
reasons that follow I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Greene's Statement
of Claim is nothing more than a vicious and hostile abuse of the process of
this Court and ought to be struck in its entirety. Ms. Greene's Statement
of Claim is loaded with opinions, character assassinations and improper
innuendos. She asserts that some of the defendants in this action are
trying to murder her in order to silence her. Driving the plaintiff's
entire litigation attack is her opinion that there is something wrong with
ambulance service in New Brunswick and that there is corruption within the
ranks of Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[4] The plaintiff
has commenced this action against over 80 individuals and various legal
entities including the Province of New Brunswick; Horizon Health Network (Zone
3); Dr. Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital; Medavie Inc.; Medavie Blue Cross;
College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick; the Nurses Association of
New Brunswick; Association of New Brunswick Licensed Practical Nurses;
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.; Paramedic Association of New Brunswick; the City
of Fredericton and the New Brunswick Police Commission. Among the
individuals named as defendants are present and former cabinet ministers;
present and former Ombudsmen; the Privacy Commissioner of the Province of New
Brunswick; present and former members of New Brunswick hospital boards, as well
as several police officers.
[5] Much of the
Statement of Claim contains complaints by the plaintiff with respect to results
of investigations done by administrative bodies and internal workings of
organizations which involve no legal relationship to the plaintiff and create
no cause of action in relation to her.
[6] Many of the
allegations made in the Statement of Claim make reference to Criminal Code
offences which are not applicable in a civil matter.
[7] The
plaintiff's Statement of Claim is extremely prolix and consists of 104 pages
and 358 paragraphs, which are replete with pleadings of evidence and opinion
along with vicious attacks on the characters of many of the individual
defendants who are members of the New Brunswick civil service.
[8] The
defendants assert that large portions of the plaintiff's Statement of claim are
not statements of fact, and that the Statement of Claim as a whole fails to
disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendants.
THE ACTION
[9] On December 2nd,
2011, the plaintiff, Evelyn Rebecca Greene, filed a Notice of Action in the
Fredericton Judicial District against over 80 defendants (the “defendants”).
[10] On January 3rd,
2012 the plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim against the various defendants
seeking general damages in an amount to be assessed and to be disclosed before
trial; special damages in an amount to be determined with particulars to be disclosed
prior to trial; punitive damages in an amount to be assessed and disclosed
before trial and aggravated and exemplary damages in an amount to be assessed
and disclosed before trial. The plaintiff's Statement of Claim also seeks
damages pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and damages pursuant to section 52 of the Constitution of
Canada.
[11] The plaintiff's
December 2, 2011 Notice of Action contains the following summary of her Claim:
SUMMARY OF CLAIM
“The plaintiff's claim is generally described as follows and
is the result of her attendance in December 2009, at the Dr. Everett Chalmers
Regional Hospital, a public health service facility operated by horizon Health
Network, a regional health authority established by the defendant, Province of
New Brunswick, where she requested and received health services.
During the course of her attending at that facility she
observed what she believed to be illegal drug use by several of the defendants
who were persons employed at that facility and she reported her observations
and opinions to other defendants persons who were employed as security at the
facility.
As a consequence of making her report, some of the
defendants who were employed at Chalmers retaliated against Greene in various
ways taht violated her common law rights, her rights guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, her rights guaranteed by two International
Treaties and the rights and benefits set out in several statutes enacted by the
legislature of the Province of New Brunswick.
After she was discharged from the Chalmers, Greene
complained to other defendants who are legislated oversight agencies or their
employees, including the police, and those defendants refused to carry out competent
investigations of Greene's complaints.
After Greene was discharged she attended again at public
health facilities where various defendants took retaliatory measures against
her.
The defendants, generally, fall into two classes, one, those
who engaged in unlawful retaliatory measures against Greene, and, two, those
who had a duty to investigate Greene's complaints who either refused to
investigate or carried out incompetent investigations of those complaints
contrary to their duties.
Over the approximately two years, since the initial events
at Chalmers, the defendants, collectively and individually, engaged in
retaliatory treatment of Greene by various forms including the refusal to
provide medical services.
The retaliation escalated and in May 2011, Greene attended a
health services facility operated by the defendant Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.
for the purpose of assisting her investigations of the complaints she had made
to the various oversight agencies and, while at that facility, she asked for
health services.
In retaliation, some of the defendants, then employed by the
defendant, Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., refused to respond to her request for
health services and conspired with persons employed by the Police services of
the defendant, City of Fredericton, to effect a false arrest and a wrongful and
malicious prosecution of the(sic) Greene for allegedly assaulting the
defendant, Cst. Nancy Rideout, in the course of her duties when the defendant,
Cst. Nancy Rideout, had wrongfully and without just and reasonable, assaulted
the(sic) Greene and imprisoned her.
Unknown persons employed by the defendant, City of
Fredericton, as part of its police services, and other unknown persons employed
by the defendant, Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. and unknown persons employed by
the Public Prosecution Services of the defendant, Province of New Brunswick,
then conspired to fabricate evidence and to suppress evidence in order to
assist the Public Prosecution Service obtain a wrongful and malicious conviction
of the(sic) Greene.
The criminal proceedings against the(sic) Greene are
proceeding at the time of the filing of this Notice of Claim.
The public prosecution services of the defendants, Province
of New Brunswick, City of Fredericton, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
operated by the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, have been
advised of the nature of the fabricated evidence, and have maliciously and
perversely refused to withdraw or retract the fabricated evidence and have
maliciously and perversely refused to initiate a criminal investigation of and
prosecution of those who fabricated the evidence in order to protect criminals
and conceal criminal misconduct of persons employed by the defendants, Province
of New Brunswick and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.
Greene also claims against the law firm of Stewart McKelvey
and its partner Clarence Bennett for improperly soliciting information from
Greene knowing that they were in a conflict of interest position with respect
to Greene and their other clients.
Greene also claims that the employees of the Attorney
General who operate the court services conspired to harass and intimidate her
when exercising her lawful rights of the court house by subjecting to unnecessary
and unjustified search and surveillance procedures.
Greene also claims that an unknown female police officer
with the City of Fredericton acting as part of the conspiracy or retaliation
and harassment assaulted her at Shopper(s) Drug Mart.
Greene claims that the defendants have, individually, and
collectively, as part of a conspiracy, abused their positions of public trust
and failed to carry out their duties and responsibilities as public servants
where it was reasonably foreseeable that such failure would result in
emotional, psychological, physical and financial harm for Greene and would
constitute a violation of the rights and privileges of the(sic) Green as
guaranteed by(sic).
Greene claims that the defendants have individually and
collectively violated her rights guaranteed by the United Nations International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
1.
by subjecting her to “torture and to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment” (Article 7),
2.
by subjecting Greene to “arbitrary arrest and
detention” (Article 9(1))
3.
by denying Greene the right to take proceedings
before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the
lawfulness of her detention (Article 9 (4)),
4.
by failing to treat Greene “with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of her a a human person” (Article 10(1)),
5.
by failing to treat Greene equally before the law
and by failing to provide Greene with equal protection of the law (Article
26).
Greene
claims that the defendants have individually and collectively violated her
rights guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
1.
by violating her right to liberty and security of
the person (Article 3),
2.
by subjecting her to “torture and to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment” (Article 5),
3.
by subjecting Greene to “arbitrary arrest and
detention” (Article 9)
4.
by failing to treat Greene equally before the law
and by failing to provide Greene with equal protection of the law
(Article 7),
5.
by denying Greene “the right to an effective
remedy by a competent national tribunal for acts violating the fundamental
rights granted him by the constitution or by law” (Article 10).
Greene
claims that the defendants have, individually and collectively, violated her
rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1.
by violating her right to “liberty and security of
the person” (Section 7),
2.
by subjecting her to “unreasonable search and
seizure” (Section 8),
3.
when Greene was detained by “failing to inform her
promptly of the reasons for the detention,” Section 10(a),
4.
when Green was detained by failing to allow her to
exercise her right “to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be
informed of that right” Section 10(b)
5.
by subjecting Green to “cruel and unusual
treatment and punishment,” Section 12,
6.
by failing to treat Greene equally before the law and
by failing to provide Greene with equal protection and equal benefit of the
law without discrimination on the basis of mental disability (Section 15),
7.
by attempting to deny Greene a person whose “rights
or freedoms, as guaranteed by the Charter, have been infringed or denied from
applying to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the
court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances” (Section 24).
Greene
pleads and relies on the following provisions of the Mental Health Act and
other statutes of New Brunswick.
Damages
Greene
claims that as a result of the conduct of the defendants, as aforesaid, Greene
suffered the following:
a.
humiliation, embarrassment, loss of dignity and self
worth,
b.
wrongful detention and imprisonment,
c.
anxiety and fear,
d.
mental distress and mental suffering,
e.
bruises,
f.
psychological trauma,
g.
emotional harm,
h.
loss of income,
i.
aggravation and deterioration of the existing
health problems,
j.
increased financial expenses,
k.
loss of opportunity,
l.
loss of trust and faith in her government
institutions.
Greene
will be seeking from the defendants,
1.
General damages to be assessed.
2.
Punitive damages to be assessed.
3.
Aggravated damages to be assessed.
4.
Costs of this action.
5.
Such further and other relief as to this honourable court seems
meet and just.”
allegations against the defendants
THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK AND
ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW BRUNSWICK AND
MINISTER OF JUSTICE, MARIE-CLAUDE BLAIS; KELLY LAMROCK, A FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK; MADELINE DUBE, MINISTER OF
HEALTH; MARY SCHRYER, A FORMER MINISTER OF HEALTH; KEN ROSS; CHARLES
MURRAY; ROBERT TREVORS, MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY; KEVIN MOLE, ASSISTANT DEPUTY
MINISTER, PUBLIC SAFETY; DICK ISABELLE, DIRECTOR OF POLICING, PUBLIC SAFETY;
BRUCE FITCH; ANNE ELGEE; GISELE MAILLET AND KEVIN MOLE.
[12] The broad spectrum
of the allegations made by the plaintiff in her Statement of Claim are in large
part related to her allegations with respect to the affairs of Ambulance New
Brunswick Inc., which affairs the plaintiff asserts are corrupt, involving
contractual arrangements with private companies having unknown shareholders who
are allegedly benefiting from those contracts.
[13] These allegations
are found at paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 183, 184, 185, 186,
187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192 and 194 of her Statement of Claim and are linked
by the plaintiff to the Province in a number of paragraphs of her Statement of
Claim, including at paragraph 13, to a conspiracy to silence her for what she
knows. Paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim affords an example of the
conspiracy, alleging that on May 13, 2011, at Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., the
plaintiff was allegedly assaulted and falsely arrested by Fredericton Police
Officer Nancy Rideout.
[14] In paragraph 3 of
the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff also alleges that from December 3, 2009,
to the date of her claim, January 3, 2012, she suffered “gross amounts” of
abuse and “life-threatening treatment” at the Dr. Everett Chalmers Hospital
(“DECH”) in Fredericton. These are pleaded separately in the plaintiff's
Statement of Claim.
[15] The allegations at
paragraph 16 of the Statement of Claim speculate that Charles Murray, an
employee of the Department of Health, together with Donald J. Peters, the then
CEO of Horizon Health Network are secret shareholders of Ambulance New
Brunswick Inc. and therefore would not investigate the company as she requested
due to their conflicts. Also, says the plaintiff, they wanted her hurt or
killed for the same reasons.
[16] At paragraph 22,
the plaintiff alleges the existence of an “…elaborate scheme to declare Greene
incapacitated and not of sound mind, and illegally locked Greene up for
reporting the pill abuse in the acute area of the ER where Greene was hooked to
a heart monitor”. This is alleged to be in relation to an incident on
December 3 and 4, 2009 when she was detained at the psychiatric ward under the Mental
Health Act.
[17] Similarly, at
paragraphs 32 and 35 of the Statement of Claim, allegations are made against
nurses and Mr. Boyce, a paramedic, and other persons employed or working at the
DECH, entering into an agreement … to discredit and defame the plaintiff so her
report would not be believed by falsely describing her as “being out of her
mind and being in need of being locked up' and otherwise describing her
being mentally ill.”
[18] At paragraph 44 of
the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff alleges violations of the Mental
Health Act, during her “lock down” in December of 2009, and at paragraph 46
allegations are made of staff trying to cover up the DECH's alleged long time
history of disregarding the Mental Health Act. Breaches of
hospital ethics and regulations under the Regional Health Authority Act
are also alleged.
[19] A list of alleged
violations of the Mental Health Act and of the plaintiff's charter
rights are found at paragraph 29 of her Statement of Claim.
[20] This section of the
Statement of Claim, dealing with the alleged life threatening abuse at the DECH
on December 3 to 5, 2009, concludes with paragraph 71 in which a number of
persons are alleged to be parties to offences against the plaintiff.
These include paramedics, a number of doctors, nurses and hospital guards from
the DECH and officers or servants of the Province of New Brunswick, being Anne
Elgee; Gisele Maillet; the then Attorney General for New Brunswick and Minister
of Justice, Marie-Claude Blais; the then Minister of Health, Madeline Dubé;
Charles Murray; Ken Ross and Mary Schryer, a former Minister of Health. No
particulars are pleaded.
[21] Besides connecting
these defendants and the others back to the alleged offences against the
plaintiff in December of 2009, paragraph 71 alleges that they have made or used
false documents “…with intent that they be acted on as genuine to the prejudice
of anyone guilty…” of the Criminal Code Sections which conclude paragraph 71.
Apparently, this pleading mostly has to do with nurses at the DECH and Boyce
allegedly joking about pill popping; but apparently relates back to the
Attorney General and the Health Minister and some employees of the Department
of Health as they are alleged to be responsible for the administration of
health or, in the case of the then Attorney General, her refusal to consent
under section 66 of the Mental Health Act for Greene to sue in relation
to the December of 2009 incident.
[22] Paragraph 50 is
noteable in that the plaintiff claims that the prescription of the drug
Olanzapine allegedly intentionally prescribed for her in December of 2009 by
Dr. Poder and with which she was forcibly medicated was done with the intent to
murder her so that she would not repeat her allegations to anyone else.
[23] Still in connection
with the December, 2009 incident, the plaintiff alleges at paragraph 74 under
the heading “Vicarious Liability of Regional Health Authority B and the DECH
and its doctors, nurses, security guards and other staff” that the then
Minister of Health, Hon. Madeline Dubé, who was then the person responsible for
the administration of the provision of the Regional Health Authorities Act
and then states at paragraph 76, upon making certain allegations about Dr.
Schollenberg, that he is part of the “covering up process… being schemed” by
the New Brunswick Government, the Minister of Health and the Health Department.
The plaintiff appears to be referring to the “scheme” in which the Province is
covering up.
[24] At paragraph 77 of
the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff states that heads of government and the
Health Minister did not want to get caught up in drafting a new and
constitutional statute with respect to the Mental Health Act. In
my view, this clearly does not disclose a cause of action, relating as it does
to the role of the executive branch of government (the Crown) in the role of
formulating legislation and introducing it to the legislative branch and, in
any event, the Mental Health Act has not been found by a competent Court
to be unconstitutional.
[25] Beginning at page
28, paragraph 84 and continuing to paragraph 92 under the heading “Second
Deliberate and Calculated Life-Threatening Event at the DECH”, the plaintiff
alleges that when she sought treatment at the DECH on January 24, 2010, several
persons at that facility engaged in “further dangerous, life-threatening,
retaliatory measures against” her. Several persons are identified at
paragraphs 85 to 89 and each is accused of being guilty of committing criminal
offences against the plaintiff pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada.
None of them are officers or employees of the Province. No particulars are
pleaded.
[26] Nevertheless, at
page 30, paragraphs 93 to 101 of the Statement of Claim, damages are alleged
and these include a claim for aggravated and or punitive damages against the
Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Province of New Brunswick and the
Minister of Health. This follows paragraphs 90 to 92 in which both the December
2009 and January 24, 2010 allegations are referenced.
[27] In paragraph 95 of
the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff alleges that she lacks the particulars or
identities of many individuals who were involved in her care, custody and control
and a lack of knowledge of the particulars of health care services provided to
her on that occasion.
[28] At page 96 of the
Statement of Claim the plaintiff alleges that an investigation report from
certain people, including servants of the Province, Anne Elgee and Gisele
Maillet, was withheld from her. She says again that certain people want
her locked up; an apparent reference to amongst other defendants, the Province
and its officers and employees (for example, see paragraph 13 of the Statement
of Claim).
[29] At paragraph 98 it
is alleged that the Minister of Health and the Health Department are “oversight
agencies” which refused to carry out competent investigations of her complaints
and, at paragraph 99, that the defendants, the then Attorney General of New
Brunswick and the then Minister of Justice, Marie-Claude Blais, and a former
Health Minister, Mary Schryer, and the then current Health Minister, Madeline
Dubé, are liable for aggravated and punitive damages in respect of the manner in
which their employees, agents and or representatives treated the
plaintiff. There follows in paragraph 99 a list of these alleged
employees, agents or representatives. Of these the following are officers
or servants of the Crown: the Minister of Local Government, Bruce Fitch,
and the Minister of Public Safety, Robert Trevors. The remainder are
represented by counsel other than the Office of the Attorney General in this
matter. Again, there are no particulars pleaded in the Statement of Claim
of what transpired on January 24, 2010. It is merely stated that certain
individuals have committed particular offences under the Criminal Code. No
cause of action is made out against any of the defendants listed in paragraph
99.
[30] The plaintiff
claims at paragraph 100 that she represents other victims who have only a
fragile and tentative trust in the government. Also, she says, the government
has betrayed her trust. There is no evidence that she represents anyone
else, and no cause of action is disclosed. In my opinion, a lack of trust
in government induced by its actions does not constitute a cause of action.
[31] The plaintiff's
allegations with respect to the second alleged incident at the Chalmers
Hospital are in large part reiterated beginning at page 73 of the Statement of
Claim, paragraph 256, under the heading “The Second Incident At Chalmers.”
Under this heading, at paragraph 263 at page 76 the plaintiff says there “…was
more to the corruption than pill abuse, and later found out why the coverup
continued by the Government of New Brunswick and the Minister of Health and the
College of Physicians and Surgeons and Hospital staff was because of a
corporate scheme for Medavie EMS, “a private co. with shareholders of common
shares (non-par) who partnered with a crown corp. Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.
(a non-profit public corporation).” She goes on to describe again how
these shareholders are anonymous and continues as follows in paragraph 263 of
her Statement of Claim:
These companies are considered affiliates of the parent
company Medavie Inc. which is incorporated in the Province of Nova Scotia
(Dartmouth) and operates out of Moncton, N.B. as Medavie Blue Cross.
Greene learned that the former Liberal Premier Bernard Lord is a Director on
the Board of Medavie Inc. the parent Company. In short, Greene has
learned that the incorporated scheme of a crown corporation, public-non profit,
partnering with a private, profit making corporation with common shares
(non-par) to anonymous shareholders because in New Brunswick, unlike most
Canadian Provinces, private corporations do not have to reveal the names of the
shareholders of private companies to Corporate Affairs.
[32] In effect, the
plaintiff has connected the second alleged incident at the DECH, and, it would
seem, the first as well (December of 2009), as it also is plead to have
resulted from her knowledge of drug abuse by staff there, to what I find to be,
her speculative, frivolous and vexatious accusations about corruption in the
affairs of Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., all involving shareholders unknown to
her, but, yet, whom she assumes have some corrupt advantage due to their
companies' contracts with Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. In my opinion,
these assertions are baseless, without merit and constitute an abuse of the
process of this Court.
[33] This is the same
corruption as is alleged at paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and thereafter and the
allegations made against Charles Murray, an employee of the Department of
Health, at paragraphs 266, 267 and 270, including his possible involvement in a
conspiracy to murder the plaintiff, reflect the allegations made at paragraph
16. There are other allegations with respect to conspiracies to murder
contained in the plaintiff's Statement of Claim which will be referenced
elsewhere in these reasons. I also find these allegations to be frivolous
and vexatious, as well as an abuse of the process of the Court.
[34] Beginning at page
33, at paragraph 102 of the Statement of Claim, under the heading “Third
Incident of Abuse and Attempted Murder Against Greene, now taking place at
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., May 13, 2011,” the plaintiff alleges that four
members of the City of Fredericton Police Force used excessive force against
her, assaulted her, committed an aggravated assault against her and tortured
her. Ms. Greene alleges that these defendants willfully ignored tampered
CCTV and audio evidence of these alleged offences which took place at a public
health service facility operated by Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. In this
regard the plaintiff claims as follows:
12.
On May 13, 2011, at Ambulance N.B. Inc., a public building,
Ambulance N.B. Inc. where Greene had every right to be and she was not of any
threat to herself or anyone else, and ask the paramedics if they would take her
blood pressure as she felt sick. They refused to do so, and in violation
of the Ethics of the Paramedics Act, and instead of taking Greene's vitals
knowing of her serious heart condition and her reporting feeling sick, they
made a bogus 911 call on a #3 priority, to have the cops remove Greene who was
subsequently beaten by cops, while Greene was sick, wearing a lifeline
bracelet; and has an implante heart defibrillator, was Cst. nancy Rideout
refused Greene the right to get her into nitro puffer for her angina, from her
purse from her purse in her car that the supervisor of Ambulance New Brunswick
Inc., Robin O'Hara, ordered impounded; Greene was handcuffed with hands behind
her back while Constable Nancy Rideout continued to tighten her handcuffs to a
point of intolerable pain, and Cst. Rideout took Greene to City Police
headquarters without her nitro puffer for heart angina, contrary to Police
Conduct and Ethics under the Police Act.
13.
Greene ended up with multiple bruising and the police made
a bogus charge against Greene for assault when, at the same time, these four
police officers, in four separate cop cars, made notes and certain of the notes
reveal that Greene told the officers that she was sick to her stomach,
assaulted first by Rideout, without consent or warning, and in brushing off
Rideout's arm, Rideout then falsely said you are now under arrest. Greene
was of certain that the police was working in conspiracy with Ambulance N.B.
Inc. and certain of the heads of Government of New Brunswick and the Cabinet
Ministers, heads of corporations, and the Ombudsman and Lieutenant Governor
Graydon Nicholson large government and to keep Greene from uncovering the
corporate greed schemes under the Corporations Act involving provincial
ambulance services with crown, public, non-profit company, Ambulance New
Brunswick Inc. that partners with another private non-profit company that is a
subsidiary of a for-profit company, Medavie EMS inc. with common shares, non par,
and a list of secret shareholders whose names are protected from the public due
to the legislative statute in New Brunswick, unlike most Canadian Provinces,
allowing private companies the ability not to report the names of shareholders
in the corporate registry at Service New Brunswick.
Greene
was shocked and fearful and felt there was more to the corruption than pill
abuse, and later found out why the coverup continued by the Government of New
Brunswick and the Minister of Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons
and Hospital staff was because of a corporate scheme for Medavie Ems, a private
co. with shareholders of common shares (non-par) who partnered with a crown
corp. Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. (a non-profit public corporation).
These companies aer considered affiliates of the parent company Medavie Inc.
which is incorporated in the Province of Nova Scotia (Dartmouth) and operates
out of Moncton, N.B. as Medavie Blue Cross. Greene learned that the
former Liberal Premier Bernard Lord is a Director on the Board of Medavie Inc.
the parent company. In short, Greene has learned that the incorporated
scheme of a crown corporation, public-non profit, partnering with a private,
profit making corporation with common shares (non-par) to anonymous
shareholders because in New Brunswick, unlike most Canadian Provinces, private
corporations do not have to reveal the names of the shareholders of private
companies to Corporate Affairs.
264.
Greene has further learned that Medavie EMS, a parent company of
Ambulance N.B. and Nw Brunswick EMS has won a bid in Trinidad to supply a fleet
of Canadian ambulances to Trinidad with all the necessary medical equipment for
a fee of 90 million per year. New Brunswick EMS is partnered with a crown
corp. Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. which although ANB is a public
non-profit corp., by its very nature of a partnership with NB EMS (for profit
co.) would, according to the Articles of Incorporation and the financial
arrangements attached thereto, could be on the hook for loans and loan
guarantees offered to shareholders of Medavie EMS should this ambulance deal to
Trinidad become a contract and should this company go “belly up” the public of
New Brunswick are liable during the next five years which at the end of this
time, the partnership expires. Medavie EMS has written to Attorney
General and Minister of Health of Trinidad asking for the contract to be
quickly signed, however, the Trinidad Government has found some
“irregularities” and is checking further.
[35] These allegations
resurface at paragraphs 330 to 332 (page 92) where the plaintiff says that
employees of Public Prosecutions (a branch of the Office of the Attorney
General) conspired with the Fredericton City Police and / or employees of
Ambulance New Brunswick. Inc. to obstruct and pervert justice by “…fabricating
a false and misleading video tape…” that was falsely represented to the
plaintiff as a true copy of the video evidence. Again, based on the
introductory paragraphs of her Statement of Claim (paragraphs 2 to 19) and
those that follow with respect to Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., the alleged
motive is the plaintiff's alleged discovery of corruption in the affairs of
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. This appears to be founded on speculation about
the affairs of this company and about the identity and corrupt motives of the
shareholders of the private companies in contracting with Ambulance New
Brunswick Inc. and, in my opinion, this speculation and the resulting claim is
frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.
[36] In relation to
these allegations of conspiracy and corruption and beginning at paragraphs 121
and 122 of the Statement of Claim under the heading “damages” the plaintiff
alleges physical, emotional, psychological and/or mental trauma, as well as a
loss of part-time income and loss of reputation and opportunities to make money
on a part-time basis.
[37] These pleadings
appear to be unrelated to the Province, its officers and servants; however, at
paragraph 124, under the “Damages” part of the same heading, the plaintiff
reverts to the incident of December 4 and 5, 2009, as well as of January 24 and
25, 2010, and in paragraphs 124 and 125 pleads the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
[38] In paragraph 126 of
the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff refers to section 52 of the Canadian
Constitution and states that she is entitled to a remedy for the
unconstitutional sections of the Mental Health Act, particularly
subsections 66(1)(2)(3) and 7.4 and 8 which she asserts, must be struck
down.
[39] Ultimately at
Paragraph 127 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff concludes with what can
only be described as opinion on the fitness of the Attorney General and
Minister of Justice to act as such. In my opinion, this is clearly
commentary and not an actionable pleading. I find that there is no
recognized cause of action based on the alleged lack of fitness of an
individual for public office.
[40] At paragraphs 129
to 132 (see also paragraph 210) the plaintiff makes certain statements
about the defendant, Dick Isabelle, an employee of the Province's Department of
Public Safety, and the Department itself, to the effect that they agreed with
the ombudsman, Bernard Richard, to quash any chance of the plaintiff getting
justice or that they ignored the plaintiff's complaints. These two
paragraphs are reasonably clear that it was to the Ombudsman and the Police
Commission whom the plaintiff alleges that she made complaints, not Mr. Isabelle
of Public Safety. Between characterizations of Mr. Isabelle as evil and
Mr. Richard as crooked, it is hard to understand what anyone here is alleged to
have done. In my opinion, there is no cause of action made out. To
a great extent the plaintiff is dealing in the reckless character
assassinations of New Brunswick civil servants in an attempt to damage or ruin
their reputations. She labels some as murderers, vigilantes, evil,
crooked, incompetent. Some have never even met her. Ms. Greene alleges
that all of the defendants are engaged in a malicious conspiracy against
her.
[41] Paragraphs 133-234
of the Statement of Claim are with respect to the late Ashley Smith and in my
opinion are irrelevant to the plaintiff's claims.
[42] Paragraph 140 of
the Statement of Claim pleads Premier Alward's alleged disinterest. The
plaintiff does not disclose a cause of action or part of one.
[43] At paragraphs 146
to 149 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff speculates that Craig Carleton
who is employed by the Department of Justice as Clerk of the Court, is involved
“in some scheme under the Public Service Labour Relations Act”. No
cause of action is disclosed.
[44] I find that no
cause of action is disclosed against the Province in paragraph 150 of the Statement
of Claim. It is common knowledge that the police investigate criminal
matters.
[45] At paragraph 155 of
her Statement of Claim, Ms. Greene alleges that the media may be “gagged” by
the New Brunswick Government. She states as follows in this regard:
The Plaintiff states she kept in touch with Brunswick News,
the newspaper conglomerate owned by the Irvings in the Province of New
Brunswick, (by all accounts pretty much a monopoly) including the Daily
Gleaner. Greene quickly learned that the media may be “gagged” by the
Government because, even with court documents that Greene personally delivered
to the Editor of the Daily Gleaner and the Telegraph Journal, these newspapers
were not going to print the truth of the disturbing information that Greene
wanted the public to know. Also, the CBC Radio in Fredericton, N.B.
refused to broadcast anything. These are breaches of Greene Charter
Rights 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 24.
[46] Paragraphs 176 to
178 of the Statement of Claim include allegations against, amongst others, the
Province of New Brunswick (Attorney General and Ministers of Justice, Public
Safety and Health) regarding the allegations at paragraphs at 151 to 176 with
respect to alleged misconduct by members of the City of Fredericton Police Force
and tampering with evidence, all in relation to an incident with respect to an
outstanding charge against the plaintiff of assaulting a police officer as
plead at paragraph 177. These are all Provincial Court matters, where,
amongst other things, the presiding judge has the duty to make rulings on the
admissibility and credibility of evidence. In my opinion, there is no
cause of action here against the Province and I find that it is also frivolous
and vexatious as well as an abuse of the Court's process. These
allegations continue at paragraphs 180 to 182 and are repeated at paragraphs 211 to 225 where it is again alleged that all of the
defendants are engaged in a malicious conspiracy against the plaintiff.
Paragraphs 184 to 186, which allege nonfeasance by the then Attorney General of
her statutory duties, are in relation to the same allegations.
[47] At paragraphs 234
to 239 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff pleads again in relation to her
detention under the Mental Health Act at the DECH in 2009 and at
paragraphs 240 and 243 makes allegations against the defendants Anne Elgee and
Giselle Maillet, who are mental health patient advocates and employees of the
Province. Many of the allegations have no connection to the plaintiff and
relate instead to other, unnamed persons and to what the plaintiff says what
was happening to them in such situations.
[48] The only allegation
against Anne Elgee is that she told the plaintiff not to call her back as the
plaintiff was already discharged from the DECH. The only complaint
against Giselle Maillet is that she wrote (to the plaintiff, presumably), to
say that patients were not getting their right to make a phone call. This does
not disclose a cause of action.
[49] At paragraphs 244 to 245 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff relates
what she alleges happened to her at the DECH back to the conspiracy to silence
her with respect to the alleged drug abuse of ambulance attendants and nurses
at the DECH. At paragraph 249 she says this conspiracy extends to intimidation
and attempted murder of her by one or more of the defendants. I find that
this allegation is clearly frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.
[50] At paragraph 248
the plaintiff asserts that she has no trust in any one “…at the DECH, the
RHA B, or the Department of Health and the health ministers…” She says that
she feels she must leave the Province in order to survive. In my opinion,
this is not a result that establishes a cause of action nor is her alleged lack
of trust in the defendants.
[51] Under the heading
“Complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons” (page 79 of the
Statement of Claim), at paragraph 273, the plaintiff says the defendant, Deputy
Minister of Health, Ken Ross, like others, referred her back to the “RHA” and
became verbally abusive and unavailable to her. At paragraph 274 she
elaborates, saying he would not respond to her requests for help.
[52] The pleadings
against Charles Murray and the Minister of Health at paragraph 285 are similar
to those against Ken Ross, in that the plaintiff alleges that she kept getting
the same answer from them in relation to a complaint she had before the Nurses
Association of New Brunswick. Even assuming the plaintiff's allegations
are true, it is my opinion that getting the same answer with respect to a
complaint does not establish a cause of action. I also find that a
complaint before the Nurses Association of New Brunswick in relation to one or
more of its nurses was properly the business of that Association and not of the
Province or this Court.
[53] At paragraphs 338
to 342 the plaintiff pleads that the Attorney General Lamrock and Blais refused
without just and reasonable cause to grant their consent pursuant to section 66
of the Mental Health Act for her to initiate a claim with respect
to the mistreatment she allegedly endured at the DECH in December of
2009. At paragraph 342 she says it was reasonably foreseeable to them that
their refusal would result in depriving her of an effective remedy for the
mistreatment she endured there “… or by other defendants acting to assist their
friends or colleagues either individually or as part of a conspiracy.” (Emphasis
added). The plaintiff immediately reiterates at paragraph 343 the conspiracy by
the defendants to commit breaches of law and policy in their treatment of her.
[54] The named Attorney
Generals are therefore alleged in the Statement of Claim to be part and parcel
of the conspiracy against the plaintiff, both in terms of drug abuse at the
DECH and corruption in the affairs of Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. This fact
means paragraphs 338 to 342 of the Statement of claim are founded on
speculation and opinion as is every other claim advanced on the allegations of
corruption at Ambulance New Brunswick or at the DECH. As such, I find
that they are also frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the
Court.
[55] No allegations are
made in the Statement of Claim with respect to the defendants the Minister of
Local Government, Bruce Fitch, or Kevin Mole, an employee of the
Province. No cause of action is made out against either of them or the
Province as a result of them having been named as defendants. Accordingly,
the action as against them is struck and dismissed.
CONSPIRACY
THEORY
[56] The
following paragraphs in Ms. Greene's Statement of Claim shed light on the
conspiracy theory being advanced by her with respect to the police, Ambulance
N.B. Inc. and various government elected officials, employees and agencies:
13. Greene
ended up with multiple bruising and the police made a bogus charge against
Greene for assault when, at the same time, these four police officers, in four
separate cop cars, made notes and certain of the notes reveal that Greene told
the officers that she was sick to her stomach, assaulted first by Rideout,
without consent or warning, and in brushing off Rideout's arm, Rideout then
falsely said you are now under arrest. Greene was of certain that the police
was working in conspiracy with Ambulance N.B. Inc. and certain of the heads of
Government of New Brunswick and the Cabinet Ministers, heads of corporations,
and the Ombudsman and Lieutenant Governor Graydon Nicholson large government
and to keep Greene from uncovering the corporate greed schemes under the
Corporations Act involving provincial ambulance services with crown, public,
non profit company, Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. that partners with another
private non profit company that is a subsidiary of a for-profit company,
Medavie EMS Inc. with common shares, non par, and a list of secret shareholders
whose names are protected from the public due to the legislative statute in New
Brunswick, unlike most Canadian Provinces, allowing private companies the
ability not to report the names of shareholders in the corporate registry at
Service New Brunswick.
14. This
history of much self-government regulated statutes, such as the N.B. Mental
Health Act in the Province of New Brunswick, unlike more sister Provinces of
Canada, requiring Attorney General Consent, which is obviously more than a
draft legislative "slip", and also including enacting corporate
statutes that allow the private companies with shareholders to partner with a
crown corporation, a public, non-profit company without shareholders (Ambulance
New Brunswick Inc.) to partner with a private non-profit corporation, Ambulance
New Brunswick EMS which is also partnered again with a subsidiary company, a
private, for-profit company, with cherry-picked shareholders that due to the
N.B. Corporate Statues, unlike most Provinces in Canada, do not require the
shareholders names to be listed in Service New Brunswick's corporate Data base
(again unlike most sister Provinces). This for-profit, shareholders company,
with secret shareholders, is called Medavie EMS Inc., with common shares,
non-par and a financial document that is part of the Articles of Incorporation,
setting out that all the subsidiaries of Medavie EMS (which would include
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.) to allow its shareholders to borrow and obtain
loan guarantees from its other subsidiaries, such as the Crown, public,
non-profit, Corporation, Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., but nonetheless a
well-connected cash cow partner, by nature of being a crown corporation, that
is subject to financial liability for any losses of its subsidiary partners,
such as Medavie EMS Inc. over a long term, 10 year contract period.
.....
20. This
P3 scheme requires that a public ambulance service be a corporation without
share capital incorporated under the Corporations Act. Any purported approval
of the P3 would permit a for-profit corporation to operate the functions of the
public ambulances and its administration. Any purported approval of the P3
would "interfere with the Minister of Health of the Province of New
Brunswick to make effective directions, and would limit the capacity of the
board to carry out the Minister's direction, and would restrict the power of
the board to carry out the directions. In addition, since a supervisor cannot
assume the powers of the for profit private corporation under the Act, the P3
scheme "frustrates the purposes and objects of the statute regarding the
appointment of a supervisor by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
21. In
addition, the P3 schemes will entail certain hospital functions being subject
to the control and governance of the for profit private corporation. Any
purported approval of such a scheme is inconsistent with these regulations. The
P3 schemes will entail the private partner making decisions respecting ambulance
operations, usage, and staffing, the scheme is necessarily
"inconsistent" with the regulations.
And at
paragraph 194:
194. Greene
claims that part of the conspiracy to have the police "take her out",
literally and physically, was to prevent Greene from uncovering the lucrative
position or scheme of Medavie EMS, a company that is partnered with a crown,
non-profit company, Ambulance N.B. Inc. which would provide countless financial
opportunities and loan guarantees for any liability while the long partnership
lasted (10 years) with the Government of New Brunswick (Health) and his
association with its partnered company of who is is CEO of New Brunswick EMS.
In violation of Greene's charter rights under s, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 24.
And at
paragraph 263:
Greene was
shocked and fearful and felt there was more to the corruption that pill abuse,
and later found out why the coverup continued by the Government of New
Brunswick and the Minister of Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons
and Hospital staff was because of a corporate scheme for Medavie Ems, a private
co. With shareholders of common shares (non-par) who partnered with a crown
corp. Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. (a non-profit public corporation). These
companies are considered affiliates of the parent company Medavie Inc. which is
incorporated in the Province of Nova Scotia (Dartmouth) and operates out of
Moncton, N.B. as Medavie Blue Cross. Greene learned that the former Liberal
Premier Bernard Lord is a Director on the Board of Medavie Inc. the parent
Company. In short, Greene has learned that the incorporated scheme of a crown
corporation, public-non profit, partnering with a private, profit making
corporation with common shares (non-par) to anonymous shareholders because in
New Brunswick, unlike most Canadian Provinces, private corporations do not have
to reveal the names of the shareholders of private companies to Corporate
Affairs.
264.
Greene has further learned that Medavie EMS, a parent company of Ambulance N.B.
and New Brunswick EMS has won a bid in Trinidad to supply a fleet of Canadian
ambulances to Trinidad with all the necessary medical equipment for a fee of
$90million per year. New Brunswick EMS is partnered with a crown corp.
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. which although ANB is a public non-profit corp.,
by its very nature of a partnership with NB EMS (for profit co.) would,
according to the Articles of Incorporation and the financial arrangements
attached thereto, could be on the hook for loans and loan guarantees offered to
shareholders of Medavie EMS should this ambulance deal to Trinidad become a
contract and should this company go "belly up "the public of New
Brunswick are liable during the next five years which at the end of this time,
the partnership expires. Medavie EMS has written to Attorney General and
Minister of Health of Trinidad asking for the contract to be quickly signed,
however, the Trinidad Government has found some "irregularities" and
is checking further.”
[57] Even adopting a
liberal and generous reading to accommodate drafting deficiencies, it is my
opinion that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim fails to provide any factual
basis to support a cause of action in conspiracy or any other reasonable cause
of action arguable at law.
COLLEGE OF
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF NEW BRUNSWICK
[58] This component of
these reasons deals with the plaintiff's assertions against the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick (the “College,”), Dr. Ed Schollenberg
(“Dr. Shollenberg”) and Dr. Lisa Sutherland (“Dr. Sutherland”).
[59] The plaintiff
claims that the College violated her rights by failing to conduct a proper
investigation of all doctors mentioned in her Statement of Claim.
[60] The plaintiff
asserts that her “same rights under the Charter were violated, in sections
mentioned above, by the deliberate acts of omission and doctors and heads of
Government and the health minister who did not want to get caught up in
drafting a new and constitutional statute, the NB Mental Health Act.”
She asserts that “Dr. Schollenberg has been the registrar for almost twenty
years and he is confused about the sections and responsibilities of the doctor
versus the hospital administrator.”
[61] The College, Dr.
Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland seek to dismiss the plaintiff's Statement of
Claim and Notice of Action as against them and rely on the statutory defence
under section 69 of the Medical Act, which provides for immunity as
follows:
69 No action or
other proceeding for damages or any other remedy may be brought against the
Licensing Authorities, Medical Societies or the Peer Assessment Committee, the
Registrar, an officer or employee of the Licensing Authorities. Medical
Societies or the Peer Assessment Committee, an Assessor, a member of a
committee or subcommittee of the Licensing Authorities, Medical Societies or
the Peer Assessment Committee, or a member of the Council or committee of
Council, or of a Board of Inquiry
(a)
for any act or failure to act, or any proceeding initiated or
taken, in good faith under this Act, or in carrying out their duties or
obligations as an officer, employee or member under this Act or
(b) for any decision or order made or enforced
in good faith
under this Act.
[62] In my opinion, the plaintiff is statutorily
barred from bringing an action for damages against the College, Dr.
Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland since every action or failure to act by them in
the course of the performance of their duties or obligations as Registrar and a
member of the Council under the Medical Act in addition to any decision
made in the process is immune from action.
[63]
In Drougov v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2008
6938 (ON SC) Mr. Drougov alleged that he had been tortured while he was
unlawfully detained by Immigration Canada. Mr. Drougov commenced an
action against several defendants, one defendant being the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. All of the defendants filed motions seeking
an order to strike out Mr. Drougov's statement of claim without leave to amend
and for an order to dismiss the action. Mr. Justice Perrell did not
grant any of the defendants' motions on the basis that the claim was brought
for an improper purpose but he did draw a distinction between the assertions
that Mr. Drougov's claims were frivolous and vexatious and for an improper
purpose and the reasons argued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario. He writes at paragraphs 15-16:
[15] In this
regard, it is convenient to begin with the arguments of the College of
Physicians for striking the statement of claim without leave to amend. The
College of Physicians is empowered by statute to regulate the practice of
medicine in the Province of Ontario and to govern the physicians who are its
members.
[16] The
College of Physicians submits that Mr. Drougov's statement of claim discloses
no reasonable cause of action as against the College of Physicians because: (a)
it owes no individual duty of care to him; and (b) the College of Physicians is
immune from any action for damages for all acts performed in good faith
pursuant to s. 38 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, S.O. 1991, c.
18, as amended.
[64] The Court concluded in Drougov at
paragraph 18 that the action against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario could not succeed because the regulators of professions do not have a
duty of care to individual members of the public nor are they vicariously
responsible for the misconduct of their members:
[18] The
success of Mr. Drougov's claims against the College of Physicians all depend
upon: (a) it having a duty of care to members of the public; or (b) it being
vicariously liable for the misconduct of its members. However, Mr. Drougov's
claims cannot succeed because the law is that regulators of professions such as
Registrar of Mortgage Brokers, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Royal
College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, and the College of Dental Hygienists of
Ontario do not have a duty of care to individual members of the public.
See: Cooper v. Hobart 2001 SCC 80 , (2001), 206 D.L.R. (4th)
211 (S.C.C.); Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada 2001 SCC 80 ,
(2001), 206 D.L.R. (4th) 211 (S.C.C.); Rogers v. Faught 2002
19268 (ON CA), (2002), 212 D.L.R. (4th) 366 (Ont. C.A.); Lewis v. Emanuele,
[2000] O.J. No. 1085 (S.C.J.). Further, the law is that regulators of
professions are not vicariously responsible for the misconduct of their members.
See: Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada (No. 2), [2000] O.J. No.
2085 (C.A.); Carnegie v. Rasmussen Starr Ruddy, 1994 7283 (ON SC),
[1994] O.J. No. 1171 (Gen. Div.)
[65] In Drougov, the Court did not
consider it necessary to even rely on the immunity provided for from any action
for damages under section 38 of the Regulated Health Professions Act
(“RHPA”) since it was plain and obvious that Mr. Drougov had not shown a
reasonable cause of action against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Ontario. The Court accordingly found that the claim against the College
ought to be struck out.
[66] The College, Dr.
Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland also rely upon Rule 23.01(b) of the Rules of
Court which provides that they may apply to the Court to strike out a
pleading which does fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action. They
assert that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable
cause of action against them. I agree.
[67] Like Drougov, the substance of the
plaintiff's claim in the present matter is in relation to what she alleges to
have happened to her between December 3, 2009 and December 5, 2009.
However, in my opinion, what happened to the plaintiff at the Chalmers Hospital
is in no way related to any act or failure to act by the College of Physicians
and Surgeons, the Registrar, Dr. Schollenberg and a member of the College's
Council, Dr. Sutherland, in the performance of their duties.
[68] Section 38 of the RHPA, the equivalent of
section 69 of New Brunswick's Medical Act, plays a more significant role
following Mr. Drougov's complaint to the Ontario College of Physicians and
Surgeons several years later in relation to immunity from civil suits as
outlined in Drougov at paragraph 22:
[22] In 2007,
many years after the events between April 5, 2001 and August 6, 2001, Mr.
Drougov complained to the College of Physicians, and it is then that s. 38 of
the Regulated Health Professions Act might become significant, and that
would be to protect the College of Physicians for any neglect or default done
in good faith. The College of Physicians is immunized from civil suits
relating to its investigative and disciplinary functions. Moreover, Mr. Drougov
will also be confronted with the difficulties presented by s. 36 (3) of the Regulated
Health Professions Act, which provides that no record, document, statement
given at a proceeding under a health profession Act is admissible in a civil
proceeding. See M.F. v. Sutherland, 2000 5761 (ON CA), [2000] O.J.
No. 2522 (C.A.).
[69] Section 71.2(2) of the New Brunswick Medical
Act is similar to section 36(3) of the Ontario RHPA and prohibits the
plaintiff from utilizing evidence against the defendants. Section 71.2(2)
states as follows:
71.2(2) No record of a proceeding or investigation under
this Act, no report, document or thing prepared for or statement given at a
proceeding or in the course of an investigation under this Act, and no order or
decision made in a proceeding under this Act, is admissible as evidence in a
legal proceeding other than a proceeding under this Act.
[70] The plaintiff in this case is also
prohibited from calling the defendants as witnesses pursuant to Section 71.2(1)
of the Medical Act:
71.2(1) Every person employed, retained or appointed for the
purpose of the administration of this Act, and every member of Council or a
committee of the College shall not be compelled to give testimony in a legal
proceeding with regard to matters that come to their knowledge in the course of
their duties.
[71] In Deep v Massel,
2007 27969 (ON SC) the defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
and individual physicians brought motions for an order to dismiss or strike the
pleadings in two actions commenced by the plaintiff, Dr. Deep. The Court
states at paragraphs 11, 12 and 15:
[11] Dr. Deep believes that he has
been victimized by an unjustified and unrelenting “assault” on his professional
practice and reputation by an uncontrollable regulatory agency (the College)
that mishandled the initial complaint and the subsequent investigations in a
negligent, incompetent and malicious manner.
…
[12] Dr. Deep argues that there are
genuine issues for trial in both the 2005 and 2007 Actions, and that he should
be allowed his day in court to vindicate his good name and expose the malicious
actions of the College and its agents.
…
[15] The College says that the
proper way to challenge the decisions of the College and its committees is to
exhaust the appeal rights provided by statute and then proceed by way of
judicial review. Both the 2005 and the 2007 Action should be summarily
dismissed or the pleadings struck, says the College, for a litany or reasons: sections
36(3) and 38 of the RHPA restrict the use and admissibility of
the College's internal records and reports and provide immunity against civil
redress, the statements of claim disclose no reasonable cause of action, there
are no genuine issues for trial, the plaintiff's actions are nothing more than
an attempt to harass the defendants and are therefore scandalous, vexatious and
an abuse of this court's process and the actions are barred by res
judicata. In sum, there is no basis upon which these two actions can
proceed.
[72] The plaintiff in
this case is adamant in her allegations that the defendants did not properly
investigate her complaints nor treat her fairly. She seeks her day in
court. However, in my opinion, the action against the defendants remains
statutorily barred. The Court in Deep granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the two actions and that most paragraphs in the two statements of claim
should be struck because they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action
or they referred to the inadmissible records or reports: The Court stated
as follows at paragraph 17:
[17] More than thirty of the
thirty-six pages of the statement of claim in the 2007 Action deal with Dr.
Deep's criticisms and complaints about Dr. Melvin's report (paras. 17 to 19)
and Dr. Massel's report (paras. 20 to 36). Section 36(3) of the RHPA
provides, in essence, that none of the records, reports, orders or decisions
made or prepared for proceedings under the RHPA can be admitted in a civil
action. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the paragraphs in a
statement of claim that refer to such inadmissible records or reports should be
struck: M.F. v. Sutherland 2000 5761 (ON CA), (2000), 188 D.L.R. (4th)
296; Task Specific Rehabilitation Inc. v. Steinecke, 2004 Can LII 4853
(C.A.).
[73] The Court in its
analysis of the 2007 Action in Deep v Massel reaffirmed that all of the
paragraphs in relation to internal decisions and reports of the College are not
inadmissible under section 36(3) of the RHPA and must be struck.
The Court also noted at paragraph 26 an additional reason why the paragraphs
should be struck:
[26] I hasten to add that
these paragraphs would have been struck, in any event, for another reason as
well – there are no factual particulars in the statement of claim detailing
the basis for the allegations of bad faith and malice. There are only
bald assertions. Nor are there any additional particulars or
supporting evidence in Dr. Deep's affidavit (he filed an affidavit on the
motion to dismiss the 2005 Action.) The paragraphs alleging bad faith
or malice are struck.
[74] Dr. Deep appealed
the order of Justice Belobaba dismissing the two actions against the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and various doctors in Deep v Massel, 2008
ONCA 4 . The Appeal was dismissed.
[75] With respect to
statutory immunity in Deep v. College of Physicians and Surgeons 2010
ONSC 5248 , absent bad faith or pleading bad faith without any
particular facts, the Court relied heavily on section 38 of the RHPA at
54:
[54] Section 38 of the RHPA provides
that the College and its agents are immune from any action for damages for all
acts done in good faith in the performance of a duty or exercise of a power
under the RHPA for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise
in good faith of the duty or power. All the defendants are either the
College itself, or its agents. Absent bad faith, they are all statutorily
immune from suit.
[76] A substantial
amount of the plaintiff's allegations against the College, Dr. Schollenberg and
Dr. Sutherland arises out of their alleged failure to properly investigate the
complaints submitted by the plaintiff. Dr. Sutherland chaired the
Complains Committee at the time of the plaintiff's complaints to the defendant
College and Dr. Schollenberg is the Registrar of the defendant College.
The defendants submit that they are immune from liability under section 69 of
the Medical Act. I agree.
[77]
In my opinion, Section 69 of the Medical Act is sufficient to dispose of
the action for damages against the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland
in the present matter.
[78] Similarly to the
present matter, the defendants in Deep v College of Physicians and Surgeons
also brought an application to have the plaintiff, Dr. Deep, declared a
vexatious litigant. The Court states at paragraphs 34 and 36:
[34] The moving parties also
suggest the defendants are immune from liability pursuant to s. 38 of the RHPA.
It provides that no action shall be instituted against a College, a Council,
and member of a Council or a panel of a committee for “an act done in good
faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty ... under this Act,
a health profession Act ... or for any neglect or default in the performance or
exercise in good faith of the duty or power.” The defendant Dr. Walker
chaired the Complaints Committee that investigated the original KG complaint.
…
[36] The remaining defendants are
Dr. Gerace and Ms. Silver. Dr. Gerace is the Registrar of the College,
and Ms. Silver was the prosecutor who handled the discipline committee
proceedings on behalf of the College. The defendants say they too
are immune from liability because of s.38 of the RHPA. It says
absent bad faith, any agent of the College is immune from a claim for damages.
[79]
In Conroy v The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2011 ONSC
324 , Dr. Conroy sued the Ontario College in two actions. The College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought to strike the plaintiff's Statements
of Claim and claimed that the Statements of Claim failed to disclose a
reasonable cause of action and that the action is frivolous or vexations and an
abuse of the process. The motions brought by the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario were allowed and the plaintiff's Statements of Claim
were struck out with no leave to amend.
[80]
In her decision in Conroy, Madame Justice Horkins of the Ontario Supreme
Court of Justice elaborated on Rule 21.01(1)(b) where a pleading does not
disclose a reasonable cause of action and the test to strike out a claim on the
same:
[49]
The test on a motion to strike out a claim pursuant to rule
21.01(1)(b) is whether it is “plain and obvious” that the statement of claim
discloses no reasonable cause of action or that it had no chance of success.
[81] A large portion of
the plaintiff's claim against the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland
in this matter arises from proceedings under the Medical Act, similar to
the action against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in Conroy
arising from proceedings under the RHPA. None of the records,
reports, orders, decisions or any other documents created throughout the
process were admissible in a civil action pursuant to section 36(3) of the RHPA
in Conroy. It is my view, that the similar evidence in this case
is not admissible pursuant to section 71.2(2) of the Medical Act.
[82] The Court in Conroy
considered the interpretation and recent application of section 36(3) of the
RHPA at 54:
[54]
Recent decisions of this court have followed this
appellate authority and consistently applied s. 36(3) of the RHPA in this
manner: See Svec v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, [2010] O.J. No.
4804 (S.C.J); Deep v. Massel, [2007] O.J. No. 2811 aff'd at [2008] O.J.
No. 18; and Deep v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
[2010] O.J. No. 4017 (S.C.J.).
[55]
In summary, it is clear from the case law that
s. 36(3) of the RHPA creates a blanket prohibition against the admissibility of
all evidence collected during the course of the College's investigation and
this prohibition is an absolute one.
[83] The plaintiff in
this case has made allegations against Dr. Schollenberg of making or using
false documents and criminal allegations against him of being negligent to
properly investigate, of incompetence in the performance of his duties as
Registrar of the defendant College, and of breach of statutory duties. Ms.
Greene labels the decision of the College not to pursue any addition action
against the physician members whom the plaintiff has submitted complaints
against as a failure to properly investigate. The plaintiff labels Dr.
Schollenberg as “incompetent in respect of his duties” (Statement of Claim at
para 78). However, the particulars that the plaintiff provides as to the
allegations of incompetence and negligence are clearly lacking. They are
nothing more than vicious attacks and character assassinations against many
other defendants named in the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.
[84] There is no
assertion by the plaintiff in this case that Dr. Schollenberg and Dr.
Sutherland have acted in bad faith as they exercised their statutory duties
under the Medical Act. The College responded in a reasonable and
responsible manner and acted in good faith as it investigated the complaint
submitted by the plaintiff and re-opened the complaint again after it had been
withdrawn by the plaintiff. Counsel for the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr.
Sutherland assert that the decision of the defendant College not to pursue the
complaint further is also immune from any action by the plaintiff. I
agree. In my opinion, it is a vicious and hostile abuse of process on the
part of Ms. Greene. The plaintiff's Statement of Claim is loaded with
opinions, character assassinations, and improper innuendos.
[85] As in Conroy,
with the application of sections 36(3) and 38 of the RHPA, both claims by Dr.
Conroy against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario were destroyed
as it was “plain and obvious” that Dr. Conroy has no reasonable cause of action
against the College. In this matter, with the applications of sections 69
and 71.2(2), the plaintiff's claim against the College, Dr. Schollenberg and
Dr. Sutherland has no reasonable cause of action to stand and this Court has
the jurisdiction to strike the pleading pursuant to Rule 23.01(b) of the Rules
of Court. In my opinion, it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff has
no reasonable cause of action against the College, Dr. Schollenberg or Dr.
Sutherland.
[86]
In the present action, the plaintiff has made allegations of falsification of
documents, negligence and incompetence. As the defendants are the College
and agents of the College, they remain statutorily immune from action for
damages by the plaintiff.
[87] Counsel for the
College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland also seek an Order that the
plaintiff's action be struck pursuant Rule 27.09 of the Rules of Court
on the basis that it is plain and obvious on its face that the action is
scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.
[88] The plaintiff's Notice of Action with
Statement of Claim attached contains 358 paragraphs and names over 80
defendants with repetitive paragraphs throughout. The allegations against
the the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland are contained in fewer
than 25 paragraphs.
[89] In a recent Decision of our Court of Appeal
in Murray v The New Brunswick Police Commission, 2012 34210 (NB CA)
Justice Robertson referred to the difficulty in the analysis of the pertinent
“facts” as Mr. Murray claimed that the pertinent facts were contained in his
affidavit, which the Court found to be filled with “arguments, allegations and
improper innuendos.”
[90] Mr. Murray had
requested that the referral judge recuse herself from hearing the matter due to
what Mr. Murray perceived as a reasonable apprehension of bias and allegations
of misconduct and improper behaviour. Prior to the dismissal of the application
for leave to appeal, Justice Robertson comments further on the unwilling and
hostile self-represented litigant in Murray at paragraph 10:
[10]
Unfortunately, what
courts are facing today is a cluster of cases in which the self-represented
litigant is generally unwilling and, at times, hostile to the prospect of
taking instruction from the court, particularly as to what can be argued.
This is the litigant who is under the mistaken impression they have an
unfettered right to pursue their self-interests without regard to the rights of
the opposing party under the rules of evidence and the Rules of Court. These
are the cases in which the simple case becomes unnecessarily complex and court
proceedings become marathon sessions. These are the cases in which the
self-represented litigant operates on the mistaken assumption that if he or she
is unsuccessful on any ruling it is because of bias on the part of the
decision-maker. These are the litigants who, if confronted with the law,
will plead ignorance and seek the court's indulgence. Otherwise, they continue
to believe they have mastered the intricacies of statutory interpretation, the
application of legal principles, doctrines and rules – without the benefit of
legal training. Often, these are the cases where the opposing party has had
to retain and pay legal counsel to defend unmeritorious interlocutory proceedings
in circumstances where everyone knows the self-represented litigant lacks the
financial resources to pay any costs award, be it large or small. These are
cases where the self-represented litigant will expect, if not demand, that he
or she be given greater and persistent access to court staff, whose primary
function is to serve the public at large by accepting documents that comply
with legal requirements and not to act as quasi-judicial advisors. Fortunately,
most cases and most self-represented litigants do not fall within these
descriptions. The law reports support this observation: e.g., Druet v.
Girouard, 2012 NBCA 40 , 2012 NBCA 40, [2012] N.B.J. No. 136
(QL).
[91]
In the present matter, the plaintiff's Statement of Claim is also replete with
allegations and arguments against the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr.
Sutherland and the Statement of Claim has been made unnecessarily
complex. In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to comply with basic
portions of Rule 27.06 with respect to the drafting of pleadings. Large
portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim are not statements of fact and
the Statement of Claim as a whole fails to disclose a reasonable cause of
action against the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland.
[92]
With respect to the College, Dr. Schollenberg and Dr. Sutherland an Order will
issue that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim against them be struck out
without leave to amend. The plaintiff's action against them is dismissed
pursuant to Section 69 of the Medical Act and pursuant to Rules
23.01(1)(b), 27.09 and 76.1 of the Rules of Court and the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court.
INDIVIDUAL CITY
OF FREDERICTON DEFENDANTS
The Defendant Toole
[93]
Although Phillip Toole is named as a defendant in the Statement of Claim, none
of the 101 pages which constitute the Statement of Claim contain any specific
allegations against him or even any reference to his name, aside from his
inclusion in the style and cause.
[94]
Accordingly, with respect to the defendant Toole it is plain and obvious that
the Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action as
against him and as such, the Claim against Mr. Toole is dismissed.
The Defendant Carter
[95]
At paragraphs 110, 111, 112 to 115, 218, 327 and 333 of the Claim, the
plaintiff alleges or refers to the following torts against the defendant
Carter:
Bodily injury; Nervous shock; Attempted culpable homicide;
Negligence; Malicious prosecution; Misfeasance in public office; False imprisonment;
Conspiracy and false information; and Negligent investigation.
[96] However, aside from paragraph 317 which
states that the defendant Carter arrived at the Ambulance New Brunswick
building in a police car on May 13, 2011, the Statement of Claim fails to
disclose any facts in support of any cause of action as against the defendant
Carter.
[97]
It is plain and obvious that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim does not
disclose a reasonable cause of action as against Mr. Carter for any of the
causes of action alleged against Mr. Carter in the Claim and as such, the
Statement of Claim is dismissed as against the defendant Carter.
The Defendant City of Fredericton
and the Defendants MacKnight, Rideout, Phillips and Blanchette
[98] In her Statement of
Claim, the plaintiff has made various allegations and alleged various causes of
action as against the defendant City of Fredericton and the defendants
MacKnight, Rideout, Phillips and Blanchette. However, it is plain and obvious
that the Statement of Claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action as
against the City of Fredericton and named its employees and as such, the
Statement of Claim is to be struck as against them.
[99] It is my opinion
that it is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim does not disclose a
reasonable cause of action as against the City of Fredericton and the
defendants McKnight, Rideout, Phillips and Blanchette and accordingly an Order
will issue that the Statement of Claim be struck as against the City of
Fredericton, MacKnight, Rideout, Phillips and Blanchette pursuant to Rule
23.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.
Medavie
Blue Cross and Medavie Inc.
[100] Medavie Inc. asserts
that Medavie Blue Cross is a business name, not a legal entity, and therefore
has no capacity to be sued and is not a proper party to these
proceedings.
[101] It is my opinion that
even if one reads those paragraphs pertaining to Medavie Inc. or any of its
subsidiaries in a generous and liberal fashion, they fail to disclose any
wrongdoing on the part of Medavie Inc. and fail to disclose the essential
elements of a reasonable cause of action in conspiracy, corruption, or any
other reasonable cause of action arguable at law.
[102] Clearly, the plaintiff
is of the opinion that there is something untoward with ambulance service in
New Brunswick. Such statements of opinion are not only irrelevant, but
clearly do not establish a cause of action.
[103] In light of the
foregoing, it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff's action against the
Ambulance New Brunswick/Medavie defendants is without foundation and fails to
disclose the essential elements of a reasonable cause of action at law.
It is accordingly dismissed as against these defendants.
Claim against, Anne Bertrand, Bernard
Richard, Francois Levert, Pierre Beaudoin, Peter Seheult, New Brunswick Police
Commission, Nurses Association of New Brunswick, Chris Hood, Paramedic
Association of New Brunswick, and Michael Connors.
Defendant
Anne Bertrand
[104] Anne Bertrand is the
Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner of New Brunswick and says that
at all material times acted in the course of the performance or intended
performance of her duties or the exercise or intended exercise of her powers
under the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c.
R-10.6 and the Personal Health Information Privacy and Access Act, S.N.B. 2009,
c. P-7.05. There is no assertion by the plaintiff that Ms. Bertrand
failed to act in good faith, with reasonable cause and without malice toward
the plaintiff.
[105] The Statement of Claim
contains only two paragraphs referring to Ms. Bertrand, (paragraphs 144 and
146). These two paragraphs are reproduced as follows:
“The Defendant, Anne Bertrand, (hereinafter Bertrand), the
new Privacy Commissioner of the Province of New Brunswick as of September 1,
2010, and who is a lawyer and at all times relevant hereto was a resident of
the Province of New Brunswick, and a member of the N.B. Law Society. She
was not incapacitated and was of sound mind. Bertrand was verbally
abusive towards Greene and proceeded to give Greene incorrect information,
which was contradicted in front of Bertrand by her secretary, Norah.
Bertrand aid that the legislation was drafted in such a way that she was not
taking any complaints that were submitted prior to September 1, 2010, that
Richard was still in control of those. She would not listen to any
reasoning about Richard.
The Plaintiff reported to her issues to the Defendant,
Bertrand who, once again, said she could do nothing.”
[106] I find that none of the
plaintiff's claims allege any conduct or omission that would amount to a cause
of action against Ms. Bertrand.
[107] As well, the plaintiff
has made no allegations of bad faith or malice against Ms. Bertrand.
Accordingly, the immunity provisions in the governing legislation dispose of
any claims against Ms. Bertrand.
Defendants
Bernard Richard and François Levert
[108] Bernard Richard is the
former Ombudsman of New Brunswick and François Levert succeeded him as Acting
Ombudsman. I am satisfied that at all material times Messrs Richard and
Levert acted in good faith in the course of the performance or intended
performance of duties or the exercise or intended exercise of powers under the
Ombudsman Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. O-5, and the Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6. I am satisfied that at
all material times, Messrs Richard and Levert acted in good faith, with
reasonable cause and without malice toward the plaintiff.
[109] None of the plaintiff's
claims against Mr. Richard and Mr. Levert allege any conduct or omission that
would amount to a cause of action against them. The plaintiff's claims consist
of opinion and argument, for example, the statement that the defendant Bernard
Richard was “crooked” and “nasty.” Such statements are nothing more than
inflammatory, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious statements of opinion.
[110] Further, the plaintiff
has made no allegations of bad faith or malice against Messrs. Richard and
Levert, and none of the allegations with respect to them raise a cause of
action due to the immunity provisions in the governing legislation.
[111] As an example of the
vicious character attacks that Ms. Greene, the plaintiff, has inflicted on many
of the individual defendants named in her Statement of Claim the Court asked
the plaintiff to expand upon her allegation that the former Ombudsman, Bernard
Richard, was corrupt. The following are paragraphs 137 to 140 of Ms. Greene's
Statement of Claim concerning Bernard Richard, the former Ombudsman:
“137. The Defendant, MLA Jody Carr,
(hereinafter Carr) who at all times herein was a resident of the Province of
New Brunswick. Mr. Carr was not incapacitated and was of sound
mind. The plaintiff contacted Mr. Carr the MLA from Oromocto, N.B.
because her own MLA's were unapproachable. Greene relayed the
information to Carr regarding the corruption of the Ombudsman, Richard, etc.
Mr. Carr confirmed to Greene that he wrote Richard an email and that Richard
confirmed to Carr that he was working hard on Greene's complex case; that
Richard's office considered Greene a friend and that his office is looking
further into the report Greene subsequently wrote to Richard, entitled “Doctoday”
which was copied to relevant government heads. The report basically set
out that the investigation conducted by Richard's office was incomplete and
that the N.B. Mental Health Act was unconstitutional.
138. The plaintiff states that the
following day, she stopped by Richard's office and was told by staff that he
was out for lunch. Greene smelled a rat. She then asked to speak to
the senior investigator who confirmed to Greene that there was “no file open on
Greene” at the Ombudsman's office.
139. The following day after that,
Greene called the Richard's receptionist who confirmed to Greene that Richard
has been on holidays for the last two weeks, and would be off for much longer
period.
140. Greene states that she
contacted MLA Jody Carr who then stopped all communication with Greene.
On or about October 2010, Mr. Jody Carr became Minister of Education, albeit
Premier David Alward knew of the whole incident involving Richard, Greene and
Carr. Premier Alward was not interested in looking into this.”
[112] During the hearing of
the defendants' motions to strike out Ms. Greene's Statement of Claim she was
asked by the Court to expand upon her assertion that Mr. Richard was
corrupt. She responded as follows:
“MS. GREENE: Okay, I'd love to. I wrote Mr.
Richard's office, okay, a nice long report. He's – I think he thought it
was good. I was told from the head of the Health Authority that it was a
very well written report and that he thought Mr. Richard was busy looking at it
as we spoke. So, I couldn't get an answer back from Mr. Richard so I
called Jody Carr, who is the MLA, and I asked him if he could check for me with
Mr. Richard. And, Mr. Carr wrote me back and he said, “Mr. Richard is
working very hard on your report and as we speak,” was what his sentence
was. So, I never heard anything, so the next day I went down and went
into the office of Mr. Richard, the Ombudsman at that time, and I asked to
speak with him and, the girl says, “Well, he's out for lunch.” And, I said,
“That's okay, I'll wait.” “Well, it might be a long wait.” And then
I find out that indeed Mr. Richard had made a statement to his officer there,
Mr. Levert, that my – there would be no more work done on my file and, in fact,
Mr. Richard was on vacation for three weeks. So, how hard he was working
on my stuff, that's deceit. And, I'm supposed to respect that,
right? And, I got back to Jody Carr and he wouldn't respond either.
And, I have this in writing. This is no – nothing but the truth.
And then I had a letter Mr. Richard wrote to the Minister of Public Safety
telling them that ,”If Greene calls him just, you know, do what I do and blow
her off.” This is Mr. Richard. And, I got that under the Right to
Freedom of Information at that time. And, this is what I think the
Province is trying to keep from me is the truth. There's probably lots
more where that came from. That's the way, you know – I told you this
morning, sir, that I speak the truth.
THE COURT: So, you're saying that somebody told you
Mr. Richard was out for lunch and you're saying he was really on vacation for
three weeks.
MS. GREENE: Well, I said I would wait. They said
it might be a long lunch.
THE COURT: Because he was on vacation for three weeks.
MS. GREEN: On three week vacation and they – Now,
would you think Jody Carr would say that he's working hard on my complaint -
and – when he's actually on vacation? And, told the office to shut down
my case.
THE COURT: Okay, now let's turn to the assertion that
your action is frivolous and vexatious.
MS. GREENE: And, just one more thing while we're at
it. When he wrote the – when Mr. Richard wrote the Minister of Public
Safety, Dick Isabelle, and – well, Dick was the Assistant Deputy Minister of
Safety – Dick Isabelle then copied the Police Commission and said, “We will do
what Mr. Richard said and just, you know, blow her off.” So, I get a
letter from Mr. Seheult, the head of the Police Commission, the Chairman.
THE COURT: Mr. Seheult?
MS. GREENE: Seheult. And, he said, “Miss Greene,
you are phoning all heads of Government and trying to run the health
department.” And, you know, gave me a long letter, basically, criticizing
me for trying to find answers to things, okay. And, one of the things
that I was trying to find an answer to goes back to the statutes too. I
have a very big interest in the statutes. I enjoy the statutes and that's
the way it should be for the public, right. We – those statutes are there
for the public's enjoyment, right. So, when I first initially started I
would phone the Province and different people. They couldn't tell me if
Ambulance New Brunswick was actually a Crown Corporation or not because when
you're suing somebody who is a public entity or a corporation, you have to give
them notice directly. You can't take the notice for Ambulance New
Brunswick and give it to the Province. You have to take it directly to
Ambulance New Brunswick. And, you have to give notice – two months notice
under Section 15(1) against the proceeding against the Crown Act.
That's – that's what it says. So, here I was going up to Service New
Brunswick all over, “Is Ambulance New Brunswick a Crown Company?” Nobody
would tell me. “I don't know, I don't know.” Then, somebody else
said, “Well, if you don't – here's what we tell people. If you don't know
if they are a Crown or not you just send it to them anyway just in case.”
Okay. And, so I wrote to the Minister of Health's office and there's a
gentleman there named Jeff Ferguson who took over the Director's job from
Charles Murray. And, I got it in writing and he says, “Yes, it is a part
3 Crown Corporation.” That was the first time they would admit it and
this was in August of 2012, after months and months of trying to find out.
And, I knew it was a part 3 private corporation, public, P3 public partnership
and it's in the documentation that I filed on September 6 of last year.”
Defendants
Pierre Beaudoin, Peter Seheult, and the New Brunswick Police Commission
[113] Pierre Beaudoin is the
Executive Director of the New Brunswick Police Commission and Peter Seheult is
the former Chair. I am satisfied that at all material times Messrs.
Beaudoin and Seheult and the New Brunswick Police Commission acted in good
faith and in the administration of their duties pursuant to the Police Act,
S.N.B. 1977, c P-9.2. There is no assertion to the contrary.
[114] None of the plaintiff's
claims against the New Brunswick Police Commission, Mr. Seheult and Mr.
Beaudoin allege any conduct or omission which would amount to a cause of action
against them.
[115] The plaintiff has made
no allegations of bad faith and any allegations with respect to these
defendants raise no cause of action due to the immunity provisions in the Police
Act.
Defendant
Nurses Association of New Brunswick
[116] I am satisfied that the
Nurses Association of New Brunswick at all material times to this action, acted
in good faith and in the administration of or pursuant to the Nurses Act,
S.N.B. 1984, c. 71. There are no allegations to the contrary.
[117] None of the plaintiff's
claims against the Nurses Association of New Brunswick allege any conduct or
omission which amount to a cause of action against the Nurses Association of
New Brunswick.
[118] The plaintiff has made no
allegations of bad faith against the Nurses Association of New Brunswick and
any allegations with respect to this defendant raise no cause of action due to
the immunity provision in the Nurses Act.
Defendants
Michael Connors, Chris Hood and Paramedic Association of New Brunswick
[119] Michael Connors is a
member of the Complaints Committee of the Paramedic Association of New
Brunswick and Chris Hood is the Executive Director/Registrar of the Paramedic
Association of New Brunswick. I am satisfied that at all material times
to this action, Mr. Connors, Mr. Hood and the Paramedic Association of New
Brunswick acted in good faith and in the administration of or pursuant to the
Paramedic Act, S.N.B. 2006, c. 33. There are no allegations to the contrary.
[120] None of the plaintiff's
claims against Messrs Connors and Hood and the Paramedic Association of New
Brunswick allege any conduct or omission which would amount to causes of
actions against Mr. Connors, Mr. Hood and the Paramedic Association of New
Brunswick.
[121] The plaintiff has made
no allegations of bad faith against these defendants and any allegations with
respect to these defendants raise no cause of action due to the immunity
provision in the Paramedic Act.
Specific
Legislative immunity Provisions
Defendant
Anne Bertrand
[122] Pursuant to subsection
64(1) of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009,
c. R-10.6 and subsection 65(1) of the Personal Health Information Privacy and
Access Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. P-7.05, no proceedings lie against the privacy
commissioner. These sections provide as follows:
Right to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act
64(1) No
proceedings lie against the Commissioner, the Ombudsman when performing the
duties and exercising the powers of the Commissioner or any person holding any
office or appointment under the Commissioner or Ombudsman for anything he or
she may do, report or say in the course of the performance of a duty or the
intended performance of a duty under this Act or the exercise of a power or
intended exercise of a power under this Act, unless it is shown that he or she
acted in bad faith.
Personal
Health Information Privacy and Access Act
65(1) No
proceedings lie against the Commissioner or any person appointed by the
Commissioner under this Act for anything he or she may do, report or say in the
course of the performance of a duty or the intended performance of a duty under
this Act or the exercise of a power or intended exercise of a power under this
Act, unless it is shown that he or she acted in bad faith.
[123] As well, the plaintiff's
claims are not actionable against Ms. Bertrand and are barred by virtue of
section 61 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and
section 61 of the Personal Health Information Privacy and Access Act, which
make section 12 of the Inquiries Act, R.S.N.B. 2011, c. 173, applicable to the
defendant Bertrand. These sections provides as follows:
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
61 If the Commissioner conducts an investigation under this
Act, the Commissioner has all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred
on a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
Personal Health Information Privacy and Access Act
61 If the Commissioner conducts an investigation under this
Act, the Commissioner has all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred
on a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
Inquiries Act
12(1) No action shall be brought or maintained against
a commissioner by reason of an act purporting to be done by the commissioner in
his or her capacity as a commissioner, unless it appears that the act was done
by the commissioner without reasonable cause and with actual malice and wholly
without jurisdiction.
12(2) In an action under subsection (1), the defendant may
plead the general issue and give the special matter in evidence.
[124] The plaintiff has not
alleged and has not pleaded facts that show that Ms. Bertrand has acted in bad
faith, with malice, or without reasonable cause or without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, I conclude that the immunity provisions in these statutes dispose
of the matter as against the defendant Bertrand.
Defendants
Bernard Richard and François Levert
[125] Pursuant to subsection
24(1) of the Ombudsman Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. O-5, and subsection 64(1) of the
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, no
proceedings lie against Messrs Richard or Levert. These sections provide as
follows:
Ombudsman Act
24(1) No proceedings lie against the Ombudsman or
against any person holding any office or appointment under the Ombudsman for
anything he may do or report or say in the course of the exercise or
intended exercise of any of his functions under this Act whether or not that function
was within his jurisdiction, unless it is shown he acted in bad faith.
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
64(1) No proceedings lie against the Commissioner, the
Ombudsman when performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Commissioner
or any person holding any office or appointment under the Commissioner or
Ombudsman for anything he or she may do, report or say in the course of the
performance of a duty or the intended performance of a duty under this Act or
the exercise of a power or intended exercise of a power under this Act, unless
it is shown that he or she acted in bad faith.
[126] Also, no action may be
brought or maintained against Messrs Richard or Levert pursuant to section 10
of the Ombudsman Act and subsection 12(1) of the Inquiries Act, R.S.N.B. 2011,
c. 173, which provide as follows:
Ombudsman Act
10 For the purposes of this Act, the Ombudsman is a
commissioner under the Inquiries Act.
Inquiries Act
12(1) No action shall be brought or maintained against a
commissioner by reason of an act purporting to be done by the commissioner in
his or her capacity as a commissioner, unless it appears that the act was done
by the commissioner without reasonable cause and with actual malice and wholly
without jurisdiction.
[127] The plaintiff has not
alleged and has not pleaded facts that show that Messrs Richard and Levert have
acted in bad faith, with malice, or without reasonable cause or without
jurisdiction, Accordingly, I conclude that the immunity provisions
contained in these statutes dispose of the matter. The plaintiff's claims
against the defendants Bernard Richard and François Levert are accordingly
struck.
Defendants
Pierre Beaudoin, Peter Seheult, and the New Brunswick Police Commission
[128] Pursuant to section 33.1
of the Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c P-9.2, no action lies against Pierre
Beaudoin, Peter Seheult and New Brunswick Police Commission. This section
provides as follows:
Police Act
33.1 No action lies for damages or otherwise against any of
the following persons in relation to anything done or purported to be done in
good faith, or in relation to anything omitted in good faith, under this Act by
the person:
(a) the
Commission;
(b) the
chair or a former chair of the Commission;
(c) the
vice-chair or a former vice-chair of the Commission;
(d) any
other member or former member of the Commission;
(e) any
employee or former employee of the Commission; and
(f) an
investigator appointed to investigate a conduct complaint under
Division C of
Part III or Division B of Part III.
[129] The plaintiff has not
alleged and has not pleaded facts that show that Messrs Beaudoin and Seheult or
the New Brunswick Police Commission have acted in bad faith. Thus, I
conclude that the immunity provision in the Police Act disposes of the
matter. The claims against the defendants Beaudoin and Seheult and the
New Brunswick Police Commission are accordingly struck.
Defendant
Nurses Association of New Brunswick
[130] Pursuant to section 48
of the Nurses Act, S.N.B. 1984, c. 71, the Nurses Association of New Brunswick,
is not liable for any loss or damage of any kind allegedly suffered or incurred
by the plaintiff, which section of the Nurses Act provides as follows:
Nurses Act
48 Neither the Association, nor the Board, nor any of
the committees of the Board or of the Association, nor any member,
officer, appointee of the Executive Director, or employee of any of the
foregoing bodies shall be liable for any loss or damage of any kind suffered or
incurred by any person as a result of anything done, any proceedings taken, or
any order made or enforced by it or them in good faith in the administration of
or pursuant to this Act, the previous Act, the bylaws or rules.
[131] The plaintiff has not
alleged and has not pleaded facts that show that the Nurses Association of New
Brunswick has acted in bad faith. Accordingly, thus I conclude that the
immunity provision in the Nurses Act disposes of the matter. The
claim against the Nurses Association of New Brunswick is accordingly struck.
Defendants
Michael Connors, Chris Hood and Paramedic Association of New Brunswick
[132] Pursuant to section 44
of the Paramedic Act, S.N.B. 2006, c. 33, Michael Connors, Chris Hood and the
Paramedic Association of New Brunswick, are not liable for any loss or damage
of any kind allegedly suffered or incurred by the plaintiff. Section 44
of the Paramedic Act provides as follows:
Paramedic Act
44 None of the Association, the Board, any of the
committees of the Board or of the Association, or any committee or Board
member, officer or employee of any of the foregoing bodies or appointee of the
Registrar shall be liable for any loss or damage of any kind suffered or
incurred by any person as a result of anything done or not done, any
proceedings taken, or any order made or enforced by it or them in good faith in
the administration of or pursuant to the Act, by-laws or rules.
[133] The plaintiff has not
alleged and has not pleaded facts that show that Messrs Connors and Hood or the
Paramedic Association of New Brunswick have acted in bad faith.
Accordingly, I conclude that the immunity provision in the Paramedic
Act disposes of the matter. The action against the defendants Michael
Connors, Chris Hood and Paramedic Association of New Brunswick is accordingly
dismissed.
Statutory
Immunity CASES
[134] There appears to be no
reported decisions in New Brunswick interpreting the specific legislative
provisions cited above. However, the numerous cases which discuss
analogous immunity provisions in other Canadian provinces demonstrate that
courts interpret these provisions to mean what they say.
[135] In my opinion, the
provisions cited above are clear and the legislative intent is clear. Quite
simply, these provisions grant immunity to the defendants in this matter who
are protected by statutory immunity, meaning the plaintiff's claims cannot
stand against those defendants who enjoy statutory immunity.
[136] In a similar recent
case, Hamalengwa v. Bentley, 2011 ONSC 4145 , [2011] O.J. No. 3477 (Ont.
S.C.J.) (QL) the plaintiff made allegations against multiple defendants in his
314 paragraph statement of claim. Those defendants included Ontario government
ministers, the Ombudsman of Ontario, and the Toronto Police Services Board to
name a few. The Court struck the plaintiff's statement of claim in that action
in its entirety and dismissed the action. In regard to the specific claim
against the Ombudsman in that case, Lederman J., cited s. 24(1) of Ontario's Ombudsman
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 06, which is virtually identical to the immunity
provision in New Brunswick's Ombudsman Act cited above. At paras. 21 and
22 of the decision, Lederman J. held:
21 Any claim against the Ombudsman is blocked by statute,
unless it can be shown that he acted in bad faith. The plaintiff alleges
malice, misrepresentation and fraud against the Ombudsman but, as discussed
previously, particulars allowing an inference of bad faith are absent from the
statement of claim.
22 Therefore, the statement of claim as against the
Ombudsman cannot stand.
[Emphasis added]
[137] No further discussion
was necessary for Justice Lederman because the meaning of the provision was
apparent. With respect to the present case, Hamalengwa not only
demonstrates that Ms. Greene's claim cannot stand against Mr. Richard and Mr.
Levert, but by analogy, the case demonstrates that the immunity provisions in
the other statutes cited above in this decision be taken at face value to
strike the claims with respect to each of the other defendants.
[138] The case of Sahyoun
v. Broadfoot, [2008] B.C.J. No. 2667 (S.C.) (QL), varied on the costs issue
[2009] B.C.J. No. 2500 (C.A.) (QL), [leave to appeal refused] [2009] S.C.C.A.
No. 546 (QL) dealt with what the Court called “an omnibus legal action” (para.
27). The plaintiffs commenced an action against 22 defendants, including
several Crown ministries and the British Columbia Office of Information and
Privacy Commissioner. The claim against the Privacy Commissioner was dismissed
in its entirety based on the statutory immunity provision even though the
plaintiffs made allegations of bad faith. At paragraphs 71, 72 and 73 Williams
J. writes:
71 Section 48 of the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act noted earlier provides a complete
answer to this claim. The Commissioner and those acting on his behalf,
which I find Ms. Francis and Mr. Boyd to have been doing, are protected from an
action such as this by the statute. The protection applies to acts done in good
faith. I arrive at this conclusion in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs
allege that there was bad faith on the part of the Office of the Information
and Privacy Commissioner. Specifically, in paragraph 62, the following
statement appears:
Dr. Riad feels that this repeated loss or neglect of his
affidavit is indicative of bad faith on the part of the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner [et cetera].
72 In my view, the following passage from the decision
of Mr. Justice McEwan in Speckling v. Kearney, 2006 BCSC 506 is instructive and
applicable. There he said:
I am
satisfied, having reviewed the statement of claim in its entirely that, in any
event, the discontinued claims brought against the Labour Relations Board and
the named adjudicators are simply collateral attacks on the manner in which
they carried out their quasi-judicial functions. The complaint against Sharon
Kearney is that she "deliberately did not use [her] knowledge", a
complaint which, if true, could be addressed on judicial review. The complaint
against Michael Fleming is that he "failed to address" or
"deliberately failed to adjudicate" a number of matters. These could
also be addressed on judicial review. There is nothing pleaded in the statement
of claim that would take what the named defendants did out of the realm of
their responsibilities under the Code. It is not enough to simply
characterize the exercise of a quasi-judicial function in terms approximating
bad faith to strip an adjudicator of the immunity afforded to such decision
makers [ cites are provided]. [Emphasis added.]
73 It is my conclusion that the pleading herein as it
relates to the claim against the Commissioner and his staff and office is of
this type. There are no facts pled that would legitimately take the conduct
complained against into the realm of bad faith, and given the general
flavour of the plaintiffs' statement of claim at large, with frequent
assertions of professional malpractice and more, I find this is simply a
characterization of bad faith to overcome the immunity provision of the
legislation and nothing more.
[Emphasis in para. 71 and 73 added; emphasis in para. 72 in
original]
[139] The Saskatchewan case of
D.M.H. v. Camgoz, [1996] S.J. No. 835 (Q.B.) (QL) (“D.M.H.”) is
one of many examples which demonstrates that courts often look to analogous
legislation when deciding statutory immunity cases. This case was an
application by the defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan
to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause
of action. The plaintiff in that case claimed against the College for
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for failing to respond to complaints of
sexual assault that she made against her doctor. The plaintiff did not allege
bad faith or malice against the defendant College. D.M.H. is useful in
the present case because Justice Geatros referred to s. 60(1) of the Medical
Profession Act, 1981 which is similar to the New Brunswick immunity
provisions cited above. He writes at paragraph 17:
17 The plaintiff has not alleged that the College acted in
bad faith or with malice. She says that there are no facts known to her to
plead bad faith or malice at this time; that knowledge of these circumstances
lie with the College, and evidence in that area may be obtained through the
examination for discovery process. Such an approach, I find, cannot avail her.
Not only does the Medical Profession Act, 1981, absolve the College from
liability for any act done in good faith (ss. 60(1)), but the plaintiff must,
in any event, allege bad faith or malice. The headnote in Calvert et al. v. Law
Society of Upper Canada reflex, (1981), 1981 1726 (ON SC), 121 D.L.R. (3d) 169
(Ont. H.C.), succinctly makes the point:
In determining whether or not someone should be denied
admission to membership in the Law Society of Upper Canada on the basis of bad
character, or, after admission, should be suspended or disbarred because of
professional misconduct, the Benchers of the Law Society are acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity. As such, their decisions are not reviewable by
the Courts unless malice has been shown. Hence, a statement of
claim in an action against the Law Society alleging that the Benchers
negligently admitted a lawyer to membership in the Law Society and negligently
failed to suspend or disbar him, as a result of which the plaintiffs later
suffered damages because of the lawyer's fraud, should be struck out on the
ground that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Steele J. offered the view that the courts have used
"bona fide" and "malice" interchangeably. He said, at
p. 176, "In my opinion there is no difference. Lack of bona fide
being the same as malice and none being alleged in this case, there is no cause
of action" (para. 17).
[Emphasis added]
[140] Geatros J. looked at
another analogous situation at paragraphs 22-23:
22 In regard to the
allegation of negligence by the College towards the plaintiff, she is again
faced with ss. 60(1) of The Medical Profession Act, 1981, absolving "the
college, the registrar or any employee of the college . . . for any act done,
proceeding taken or judgment given or entered in good faith . . .".
Again, the plaintiff has not alleged a lack of good faith. In Lee v. Law
Society of Upper Canada [1994] O.J. No. 1468 (Ont. Gen. Div.), the court struck
a claim brought against the Law Society by a client who had lodged a complaint
with the Law Society. Chilcott J. pointed out at para. 19:
No action lies against The Law Society. First of all,
it is clear that private individuals have no standing against The Law Society
of Upper Canada and secondly, in the absence of bad faith or malice, The Law
Society of Upper Canada cannot be sued for the negligent exercise of an
investigation into the conduct of a solicitor.
23 [ . . . ] Chilcott
J. at para. 22, made reference to Voratovic v. Law Society of Upper Canada
(1978), 1978 1460 (ON SC), 20 O.R. (2d) 214 (H.C.J.), where Cromarty J. said,
at p. 217:
In the case at bar the Secretary in investigating
Voratovic's complaint and in deciding not to take further proceedings, was
exercising a quasi-judicial discretion. The Law Society is not liable for
the erroneous exercise of its discretion so long as it acted bona fide and
without malice; it could not be sued for negligence.
[141] In Boucher v. Milner,
1997 CarswellNB 521 (C.A.) a police officer subject to a Police Act
complaint sued the officer who conducted the investigation into the complaint.
The defendant investigative officer sought to have the action set aside because
he claimed immunity under the Protection of Persons Acting Under Statute
Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-20 as rep. by R.S.N.B. 2011, Schedule A.
At the Court of Queen's Bench level, the motions judge ruled against the
defendant investigator and held that the Act did not apply because the
investigative officer was not acting as a police officer in that instance. The
Court of Appeal disagreed with the motions judge. Ryan J.A. writing for the
majority concluded at paragraph 10:
10 There is however a
principle to be taken from the Morier case which is applicable to this appeal.
There and in the case on appeal to us, the parties were acting under the
authority of a statute. In Deputy Chief Milner's case, his appointment
qualification as an investigator under s.28(2) was the fact that he was a
police officer. As such, he is entitled to immunity from civil prosecution
for anything done within the purview of his office as an investigator. The
fact that a person other than a police officer may or may not enjoy a similar
immunity from prosecution is of no moment. [Emphasis added]
[142] The legislation and the
jurisprudence are clear: when a statute provides immunity to a defendant
in an action or proceeding, the immunity provision is a complete answer to the
claim. In the present case, each of the defendants, Anne Bertrand, Bernard
Richard, François Levert, Pierre Beaudoin, Peter Seheult, New Brunswick Police
Commission, Nurses Association of New Brunswick, Michael Connors, Chris Hood,
and Paramedic Association of New Brunswick, are protected by the statutory
immunity provisions cited above. For that reason, the plaintiff's case cannot
succeed against these defendants. The plaintiff's Statement of Claim is
to be struck out and judgment dismissing the action against these defendants is
accordingly to be issued pursuant to Rules 37.10(a) or alternatively 22.04(3).
See Lloyd's of London v. Norris, 1998 12249 (NB CA), [1998] N.B.J. No.
351 (C.A.) (QL) LawPost, a division of Legal Research Consultants Inc. v.
New Brunswick, [1999] N.B.J. No. 216 (Q.B.) Jones' Masonry Ltd.
v. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd., [2010] N.B.J. No. 31 (C.A.) (QL).
DEFENDANTS CLARENCE BENNETT AND
STEWART MCKELVEY
[143] The plaintiff asserts
that the defendant, Clarence Bennet, a partner of the Stewart McKelvey law
firm, violated sections 7, 10, 15, and 24(1) of the plaintiff's Charter
Rights.
[144] With respect to her
claim against the Stewart McKelvey Law Firm, the plaintiff claims as follows at
paragraphs 295 to 301 of her Statement of Claim:
295.
On or about Sunday, May 23, 2010, Greene contacted the defendant,
Bennett, a lawyer employed by the defendant, Stewart McKelvey, with the expectation
that Stewart McKelvey would be able to represent her in her complaints against
various nurses, doctors, paramedics and at Chalmers.
296.
Knowing that he had a conflict of interest and contrary to his
professional duties, Bennett neglected to inform Greene of the huge and glaring
conflict in that the law firm of Stewart McKelvey regularly represented the New
Brunswick Nurses Association, the New Brunswick Paramedic Association and
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc.
297.
Knowing that he had a conflict of interest and contrary to his
professional duties, Bennett requested that Greene bring all of her
documentation to his office for review which she did on or about Tuesday, May
25, 2010, at which time she had a lengthy discussion with Bennett concerning
all of her issues to that date. Bennett requested that Greene leave her
documents with him so he could make copies.
298.
On or about Thursday, May 27, 2010, Greene received a telephone
call from a person who identified herself as the receptionist at Stewart
McKelvey and who informed Greene that she would have to pick up all of her
documents due to conflicts of interest, together with a letter from Bennet
saying: “We are unable to act for you due to a conflict.”
299.
Greene claims that the defendants Bennett and the law firm of
Stewart McKelvey, falsely and maliciously, contrary to their professional
duties, induced her to disclose information to them for the benefit of their
interests an their clients' interests, duping Greene into false expectations of
representation, failing to uphold their legal and professional ethics and
conduct, expected of each and every lawyer practising law in accordances with
the Code of Ethics of the N.B. Law Society, knowing that they could not act in
any event, due to obvious conflicts of interest that they deliberately and
unethically withheld from Greene.
300.
Stewart McKelvey treated Greene as an insignificant member of the
public and duped her into believing they were an honest and upright law firm at
the outset, only to take advantage of her vulnerability and trust that they
would be carrying on business in an ethical and legal manner which was
disruptive to Greene's plight for justice.
301.
Greene claims that Bennett and Stewart McKelvey have, contrary to
their duties and legal and ethical obligations as lawyers, endorsed a scheme to
literally stab Greene in the back and illegally shared the information she
provided to them with one or more of the defendants.
[145] In an affidavit, Mr. Bennett
deposes that he received a telephone call from the plaintiff on Sunday, May 23rd,
2010, a long holiday weekend. By subsequent e-mails to Mr. Bennett the
plaintiff indicated that she was interested in determining the constitutional
validity of certain sections of the Mental Health Act which had the
effect of authorizing the involuntary detention of a person in a psychiatric
facility but further purported to deny that person's right to legal redress in
respect of such involuntary confinement except with the consent and
authorization of the Attorney General of New Brunswick and that she had
previously obtained certain legal articles/research questioning the
constitutional validity of legislation of such nature, all of which she was
interested in further exploring.
[146] The plaintiff met with
Mr. Bennett on Tuesday, May 25th, 2010. She left an envelope
containing copies of material contained in a file which she said comprised
research material she had obtained from a professor in British Columbia relating
to the potential constitutional validity of provisions of the Mental Health
Act. Mr. Bennett told her that he would not be able to inspect her
copies of such materials until assurance was first obtained that he could
accept the plaintiff's proposed retainer. Mr. Bennett says he immediately
delivered the file or envelope of materials to his legal assistant. Mr.
Bennett deposes as follows in paragraphs 9 to 12 of his affidavit:
“9.
I am advised by my wife, Rachel Bennett, and do verily
believe, that on May 26, 2010, a telephone call was received by my said wife at
our residence from an individual who: (i) identified herself as Evelyn Greene,
(ii) indicated taht she (the caller) was in the process of being transported to
hospital, (iii) stated she (the caller) had lots of money, and (iv) indicated
that I (Clarence Bennett) should ‘fight for her if she did not make it out
alive.'
10.
On May 27, 2010, I advised Evelyn Greene, both orally (by
telephone call) and in writing, that I was unable to accept Ms. Greene's
proposed retainer owing to potential conflicts of interests. On May 27,
2010, I also instructed my assistant Francine Bradbury to make immediate
arrangements with Evelyn Greene whereby Ms. Greene would attend at the offices
of Stewart McKelvey, 77 Westmorland Street, Fredericton, NB, to personally
retrieve that file or envelope of materials which she had provided to me on May
25th, 2010.
11.
I am informed by my said legal assistant Francine Bradbury,
and do verily believe, that by means of a telephone call which she (Francine
Bradbury) made to Evelyn Greene, arrangements were concluded whereby Evelyn
Greene attended at the said law offices of Stewart McKelvey on May 27, 2010, at
which time that file or envelope of materials, which the plaintiff had provided
to me on May 25, 2010, was then physically returned to Evelyn Greene. I
have further been informed by my said legal assistant Francine Bradbury, and do
verily believe, that while such file or envelope of materials was in her
(Bradbury's) possession from May 25 to 27, 2012, the same was never opened,
inspected nor copied by her.
12.
Neither those materials (which the plaintiff left in the
law offices of Stewart McKelvey during the period from May 25 to 27, 2012), nor
any information imparted to me by the said plaintiff, was (i) ever used either
by myself or any other lawyer or employee of the Stewart McKelvey, in any
fashion or manner whatsoever, much less in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the plaintiff, nor (ii) ever shared with any of the other
defendants inthe within action. Furthermore, neither I nor any other
lawyer or employee of Stewart McKelvey law firm ever participated in any
alleged scheme to use any information whatsoever that Evelyn Greene imparted to
me during our May 25, 2010 discussions respecting my potential retainer.”
[147] Mr. Bennett's legal
assistant, Francine Bradbury, deposes in an affidavit that Mr. Bennett met with
the plaintiff on May 25th, 2010 and when he emerged from a boardroom
at the Stewart McKelvey Law Offices in Fredericton he handed Ms. Bradbury a
file or envelope with materials which Mr. Bennett instructed Ms. Bradbury to be
held at her workstation, “without any review, inspection or copying of the
contents thereof unless and until the said Clarence Bennett was first satisfied
that he would act on behalf of Evelyn Greene.” I am satisfied that Mr.
Bennett advised the plaintiff that he would not be acting for her. The
plaintiff, in her statement of claim, states that she was told by Mr. Bennett's
legal assistant that they would not be acting, “due to a conflict.”
[148] I am further satisfied
that there was never a solicitor-client relationship established between the
plaintiff and Mr. Bennett and that at no time did he ever provide her with a
legal opinion concerning the constitutionality of the Mental Health Act.
Accordingly, I allow the motion filed on behalf of Clarence Bennett and Stewart
McKelvey and order that the plaintiff's statement of claim as against them be
struck out pursuant to rules 27.09(b) and 27.09(c) of the Rules of Court
on the basis that it is plain and obvious on the face of such statement of
claim that the action with respect to Clarence Bennett and Stewart McKelvey is
scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the process of the
Court. It is my opinion that Mr. Bennett followed the correct and ethical
procedure when checking to ascertain if a conflict existed before agreeing to
act for a potential client. As with many of the defendants, Mr. Bennett
got caught in the cross fire and in this litigation simply by coming into
contact with the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim against Clarence
Bennett, Matthew Tweedie and the Stewart McKelvey law firm is accordingly
struck.
MATTHEW TWEEDIE
[149] Mr. Tweedie is a member
of the Law Society of New Brunswick and has been practicing law since June of
1994. At all relative times to the plaintiff's action he was appointed by
the Lieutenant Governer in Council pursuant to section 7.5 of the Mental
Health Act as a chairman of a Mental Health tribunal. In an
affidavit he states that he has always carried out his functions as chairman,
“honestly, in good faith and without malice to any person or party.”
[150] The plaintiff's claims
and assertions against Mr. Tweedie are contained in paragraphs 136, 151, 238,
239 and 246 of her statement of claim as follows:
136.
The defendant, Matthew Tweedie, (hereinafter Tweedie) was at all times
hereto a resident of the Province of New Brunswick and at all times a member of
the Law Society of New Brunswick. Mr Tweedie is not
incapacited and is of sound mind and
working for the law firm, Cox and Palmer. Tweedie was at all times hereto
the designated/appointed Tribunal Chairperson forthe D.E.C.H. and paid by the
RHAB and the Minister of Health for the Province of New Brunswick. Greene
was not told whatsoever that a Tribunal Chair existed when she was illegally
detained. Greene called the defendant, Elgee, the Mental Health Patient
Advocate for the DECH who told Greene not to call back, that there was nothing
she could do or say once Greene was discharged. Elgee was not interested
in the details of the illegal detainment and abuse. Greene feels that
Tweedie failed in his duty to ensure that staff were following all rules and
policies under the N.B. Mental Health Act, filling out proper forms and
advising patients of their rights to call a lawyer. It was apparent to
Greene that Tweedie most likely did not know of her detainment and, if he did,
he just treated it like a puff of smoke. Therefore he violated Greene
charter rights 7, 11, 15, 24 and section 52 of the Constitution.
151.
The plaintiff learned that the same law firm, Cox and Palmer,
where the Tribunal Chair, defendant Tweedie works, also represents the RHAB and
the DECH. Greene soon realized that this was a major conflict.
There was no investigation completed at the hospital, no one to report this
unfortunate set of circumstances to; and even the Ombudsman was involved.
238.
The defendant, Matthew Tweedie, who was hired by the DECH and the
RHAB as an ousied contractor to be available on call for going to the hospital
for a hearing for all involuntary patients, non-consenting, and over 16 which was
Greene's case. It was evident later to Greene that Mr. Tweedie was not
carrying out his arranges with the hospital and the health department or he
would have ensure that the staff, and most certainly the Mental Health Patient
Advocate, defendant Anne Elgee was carrying out her duties to notify him of
Greene's detainment forthwith. In addition, it appears a nurse
manager/administrator faxed the form 1 to Elgee, but to all accounts it appears
that this administrator did not contact Tweedie as well.
239.
The plaintiff pleads that she suffered intolerable anxiety and
emotional abuse as a result of the defendant Tweedie not ensuring that the
rules under the N.B. Mental Health Act and other policies were being followed
towards Greene. Tweedie violated sections 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 24(1) and
Greene Charter rights and 52 of the Constitution.
246.
Incredibly, Greene learned that the chair of the Tribunal for the
DECH, lawyer Matthew Tweedie, is employed with the law firm, Cox and
Palmer. Greene was shocked again to learn that Cox and Palmer law firm,
Mr. David Hashey, represents the DECH and the RHA which is a direct conflict of
interest. Greene feels that a victim of psychiatric abuse would have no
chance in any legal action against the staff or hospital due to the lawyers
most likely would want to please the big cash cow, the hospital; and in
retrospect with all the rules not being followed and the abuse towards
involuntary patients carrying on for years, confirms this theory.
[151] I am satisfied that
prior to the plaintiff's issuance of this action she and Mr. Tweedie had never
met each other and there had never been any communication, or other interaction
of any nature between the plaintiff and Mr. Tweedie such as to thereby give
rise to any cause of action. It would appear that the plaintiff's action
against Mr. Tweedie is based on her erroneous perception of the statutory
duties imposed upon a chairman of a Mental Health tribunal pursuant to the Mental
Health Act. I am satisfied that there is no merit to the plaintiff's
action against Mr. Tweedie. The plaintiff has failed to plead any, or
sufficient, facts in respect of Mr. Tweedie's alleged duty, such as to allege
any viable or tenable cause of action against him. As well, since the
plaintiff's action has been issued without the consent of the Attorney General
of New Brunswick as well as more than six months subsequent to the alleged
events of December 2009 and January 2010, the plaintiff's action against Mr.
Tweedie is proscribed and barred at law by reason of both the provisions of
section 66(1), as well as those of 66(2) of the Mental Health Act. In
the result, the plaintiff's Statement of Claim against Mr. Tweedie is to be
struck out pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and pursuant to rules
27.09(b) and 27.09(c) of the Rules of Court, on the basis that it is
plain and obvious on the face of the plaintiff's statement of claim that the
action in respect of Mr. Tweedie is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and
constitutes an abuse of process of this Court. The plaintiff's claim
against Matthew Tweedie is accordingly struck.
DR.
EVERETT CHALMERS REGIONAL HOSPITAL
[152]
As mentioned, the plaintiff's action relates back to her attendance in December
of 2009 at the Dr. Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital (DECH) in Fredericton.
[153]
The plaintiff says that during the course of her attending at that facility she
observed what she believed to be illegal drug use by several of the defendants
who were persons employed at the hospital and she reported her observations and
opinions to other defendant persons who were employed as security at the
hospital. The plaintiff goes on to assert that as a consequence of her
making her report or complaint, some of the defendants who were employed at DECH
retaliated against her in various ways “that violated her common law rights,
her rights guaranteed by Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, her
rights guaranteed by two International Treaties, and the rights and benefits
set out in several statutes enacted by the legislature of the Province of New
Brunswick.”
[154]
After the plaintiff was discharged from the Chalmers Hospital, she complained
to various other defendants who are “legislated oversight agencies or their
employees, including the police and those defendants refused to carry competent
investigations” of her complaints. The plaintiff asserts that after she
was discharged she attended again at Public Health facilities where various
defendants took retaliatory measures against her.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Striking Out Claim: Rules
27.09 and 23.01(1)(b)
[155] This Court may grant the
relief requested pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction and the Rules of
Court.
Rule 27.09 of the Rules of Court provides as follows:
27.09 Striking Out a Pleading or Other Document
The court may strike out any pleading, or other document, or
any part thereof, at any time, with or without leave to amend, upon such terms
as may be just, on the ground that it
(a) may
prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action,
(b) is
scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or
(c) is
an abuse of the process of the court.
Rule 23.01(1)(b) provides:
23.01 Where Available
(1) The plaintiff or a defendant may, at any time
before the action is set down for trial,
apply to the court
(b) to
strike out a pleading which does not disclose a reasonable cause
of action or defence, or
[156] The relief requested by
the defendants in this case has previously been granted in other instances.
[157] In Murray v. Fredericton (City), 2012
NBQB 169 , Justice Clendening writes:
“[6] Mr.
Murray has not provided any factual basis for adding the Rodgers as two more
parties to the claim. The paragraphs (171-178) in the amended Statement of
Claim contain allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, harassment, and
abuse of process without stating any material facts.
[16] To
demonstrate the difficulty in reading, deciphering and analyzing whether the
Statement of Claim or Amended Statement of Claim contains any reasonable cause
of action, I will set out a number of paragraphs from the Amended Statement of
Claim that I find rambling and at some points incoherent: […]
[17] The
entire Statement of Claim is replete with irrelevant and superfluous
allegations. It is plain and obvious that there is no cause of action against
any of the named defendants. It would be impossible for any one of the
defendants in motions three and four to defend an action that is not based on
material facts, but contains Andre Murray's observations of alleged incidents
that are illogically defined. The Amended Statement of Claim is repetitive and
in parts unintelligible.
[20] It is
not necessary to detail the innumerable allegations. They are all without
foundation, and it is impossible to identify each impugned passage. It is
sufficient to note that there is no possibility of success of either of the
Statements of Claim.
[23] It is
important that the Court maintain some control over pleadings. Andre Murray is
a self-represented litigant, and he argued that he should be given latitude by
the Court. He suggests that “he has devoted copious amounts of time over many
months of his life and exhaustive effort to present interesting and thought
provoking legal argument ordinarily expected of a lawyer, further evidenced by
the quality and voluminous material presented for consideration by this
Honourable Court”. Mr. Murray is correct about the volumes of material. He is
mistaken as to its quality. Most of the material is not helpful to the Court,
and it does not relate to the issues.
[25] The
defendants' motions to have the plaintiff's pleadings struck in their entirety
are granted. […].”
[158] As is clear in Murray,
the Court must exercise its function, at times, as a gate keeper. The
plaintiff's pleadings are replete with numerous deficiencies as comparable to
the comments by Justice Clendening in Murray.
[159] The Rules of Court
provide:
1.03(2)
These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive
and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits.
[160] The statutory duty of the
Court to grant remedies to avoid “multiplicity of proceedings” is set out in
the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2:
26(9) The Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested
therein by this Act in every cause or matter pending before the Court has power
to grant, and shall grant, either absolutely or on such reasonable terms and
conditions as to the Court seems just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of
the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any and every
legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them respectively in such
cause or matter, so that as far as possible all matters so in controversy
between the said parties respectively, may be completely and finally
determined, and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of such
matters avoided.
Principles
[161] Regarding the interpretation
of the New Brunswick Rules of Court, Justice Drapeau (now the Chief
Justice of New Brunswick) reiterated as follows for the Court of Appeal in Cannon
v. Lange (1998), 1998 12248 (NB CA), 203 N.B.R. (2d) 121, at p. 127:
The intent
in permitting summary judgment is to rid innocent parties and the system not
only of meritless actions, but also of frivolous claims or defences. The claims
and defences which are without merit render the proceedings cumbersome and are
a source of unnecessary expense and delay. This Court has consistently urged
motion judges not to be unduly timid where the circumstances demonstrate a
clear absence of merit. (See RCL Operators Ltd. et al. v. National Bank of
Canada et al. (1994), 1994 4468 (NB CA), 144 N.B.R. (2d) 207 (C.A.), at 211,
para. (6)).
[162] Rule 23.01(1)(b) also
emphasized that:
Rule
23.01(1)(b) allows for a motion to strike out a pleading on the ground that it
does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. When the moving party is the
defendant, the question to be answered by the court is the following: Assuming
the facts as stated are true, is it “plain and obvious” that the Statement of
Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action? See Hunt v. T & N plc et al,
1990 90 (SCC), 1990 90 (S.C.C.); [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, at para.
33. Caissie v. Senechal Estate et al., 2001 NBCA 35 at para. 10; Sewell v. ING
Insurance Company of Canada, 2007 NBCA 42 , at para. 24.
[163] In New Brunswick v.
Rothmans Inc., 2010 NBQB 291 , Justice Cyr reaffirmed Chief Justice
Drapeau's reasoning in RCL Operators, supra:
[18] Imperial relies on Rules 23.01(1)(b) and 29.07 of the
New Brunswick Rules of Court in order to request that paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of
the Statement of Particulars be struck.
[19] Under Rule 23.01(1)(b), the only question for judicial
resolution is whether it is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim fails
to disclose the essential elements of a cause of action arguable at law.
According to our Court of Appeal, that conclusion should be reached only in the
clearest of cases. (See Sewell v. ING. Insurance Co. of Canada, 2007 NBCA 42 ,
[2007] N.B.J. No. 219 (C.A.) at para. 26; Caissie v. Senechal Estate et al,
2001 NBCA 35 , [2001] N.B.J. No. 120 (C.A.) (QL) at paras. 10-11.)
[164] In Sewell v. ING
Insurance Co. of Canada, 2007 NBCA 42 , Chief Justice Dapeau, summarizes
the test for striking out a Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 23.01(1)(b) as
follows at paragraphs 22-26:
[22] As noted, Rule 23.01(1)(b) provides that a defendant
may, at any time before the action is set down for trial, apply to the court to
strike out a Statement of Claim that does not disclose a reasonable cause of
action.
[23] The question before the motion judge was not whether
Ms. Sewell's action was factually meritorious, an issue determinable prior to
trial on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 22.01(3), but whether her
Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. […]
[24] In Caissie v. Senechal Estate et al. (2001), 237 N.B.R.
(2d) 232, [2001] N.B.J. No. 120 (QL), 2001 NBCA 35 , at paras. 10-11, the Court
explained the procedure that governs motions such as the one brought by ING in
the case at bar:
Rule 23.01(1)(b) allows for a motion to strike out a
pleading on the ground that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action
or defence. When the moving party is the defendant, the question to be answered
by the court is the following: Assuming the facts as stated are true, is it
“plain and obvious” that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause
of action? See Hunt v. T & N plc et. al, 1990 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R.
959; 117 N.R. 321, at para. 33.
The object of Rule 23.01(1)(b) is to permit the striking of
a pleading that on its face does not disclose a cause of action or
defence. Accordingly, evidence purporting to provide a factual foundation
for the action or defence is inadmissible, except with leave of the court under
Rule 23.2. In the usual case, the court's decision under Rule 23.01(1)(b) will
be based on a record comprised exclusively of the pleadings. Despite the
significant evidentiary constraints imposed, expressly and implicitly, by Rule
22, the court is required to consider a significantly greater record when
called upon to determine a motion for summary judgment. [Emphasis added.]
[25] The Court re-affirmed its commitment to that approach
in Modern Construction (1983) Ltd. v. Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Inc. et al.
(2003), 264 N.B.R. (2d) 145, [2003] N.B.J. No. 396 (QL), 2003 NBCA 78 , noting
that the judges of this Province have, without fail, applied the test
articulated in Hunt to determine motions under Rule 23.01(1)(b) and adding, at
para. 21, that in making that determination, they were required to “accommodate
drafting deficiencies by a generous reading of the contested text”.
[26] The principles that inform the determination of a
defendant's motion to strike under Rule 23.01(1)(b) are well settled and can be
summarized as follows: (1) the only question for judicial resolution is whether
it is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose the
essential elements of a cause of action tenable at law. That conclusion should
be reached only in the clearest of cases; (2) correlatively, absent exceptional
circumstances, the court must accept as proved all facts asserted in the
Statement of Claim and abstain from looking beyond the pleading itself and any
documents referred to therein (see Hogan v. Doiron et al. (2001), 243 N.B.R.
(2d) 263, [2001] N.B.J. No. 382 (QL), 2001 NBCA 97 , par. 38 and Boisvert v.
LeBlanc (2005), 294 N.B.R. (2d) 325, [2005] N.B.J. No. 561 (QL), 2005 NBCA 115
, at para. 21). To expand the exercise beyond those limits would operate to
morph the motion under Rule 23.01(1)(b) into an application for summary
judgment under Rule 22, the appropriate vehicle to determine prior to trial
whether there is factual merit to a claim; (3) the Statement of Claim is to be
read generously to accommodate drafting deficiencies; and (4) where a generous
reading of its provisions fails to breath life into a pleading, all suitable
amendments should be allowed (see Rule 27.10(1) and LeDrew et al. v. Conception
Bay South (Town) (2003), 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 61, [2003] N.J. No. 276 (QL),
2003 NLCA 56 ). Those principles reflect the Legislature's injunction that the
Rules be “liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive and most
expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits”: Rule 1.03.”
RULE 27.09
and INHERENT JURISDICTION
[165] In Moncton Family
Outfitters Ltd. v. Schelew, [2005] NBQB 273, it was confirmed that the
Court also has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
The Court states at paragraphs 31, 48 and 49:
[31] In
New Brunswick a defendant alleging abuse of process on the part of a plaintiff
has the right to apply for Summary Judgment or rely upon Rule 27.09 to strike
the Statement of Claim. Apart from the Rules, the Court has inherent
jurisdiction to act in such an instance. See University of New Brunswick
Student Union Inc. v. Smith, [1987] N.B.J. No. 263, 1987 CarswellNB 302 (N.B.
Q.B.) upheld on appeal at [1988] N.B.J. No. 240, 1988 CarswellNB 261 (N.B.
C.A.).
[…]
[48] With
respect to the Court's inherent jurisdiction to strike an action or pleading,
in University of New Brunswick Student Union Inc. v. Smith, supra,
the defendants in two separate actions sought an order dismissing or staying
the plaintiff's claims on the grounds, inter alia, that they were frivolous and
vexatious, wholly without merit and an abuse of process. The defendants relied
upon both Rule 27.09 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
[49] In
dismissing the two actions on the basis that they both were frivolous,
vexatious, without merit and an abuse of process, Justice Dickson writes at
paragraphs 18 to 20:
18 The law
applicable in this jurisdiction is essentially as set out in Halsbury (4th Ed.)
Vol. 37 where in paragraph 430 it is stated:
430. Summary
powers to strike out pleadings, dismiss actions and enter judgments. The court
is invested with extensive powers to strike out pleadings and thereupon, or for
other good reason arising from the making of the claim or defence, to dismiss
actions by plaintiffs or to enter judgments against defendants. These powers
are both salutary and necessary not only to enforce the basic rules of
pleadings but also to dispose of proceedings which are hopeless, baseless or
without foundation in law or in equity or are otherwise an abuse of the process
of the court. The powers are exercised by the court by summary process, speedily
and generally at an early stage of the proceedings, and they operate as a
powerful, effective method of disposing of proceedings without a plenary trial.
The
powers are derived from two parallel sources. First they are conferred by rules
of court and secondly they are exercisable under the court's inherent
jurisdiction. These sources are cumulative, not alternative, and may be invoked
by the parties and employed by the court simultaneously. However, the powers are permissive, not mandatory, and
they confer a discretionary jurisdiction which the court will exercise in the
light of all the circumstances concerning the offending pleading. This
discretion will be exercised by applying two fundamental, although
complementary, principles. The first principle is that the parties will not
lightly "be driven from the seat of judgment," and for this reason
the court will exercise its discretionary power with the greatest care and
circumspection, and only in the clearest of cases. The second principle is that
a stay or even dismissal of proceedings may "often be required by the very
essence of justice to be done," so as to prevent the parties being
harassed and put to expense by frivolous, vexatious or hopeless litigation.
19
Abuse of process has been described (ibid, para. 434) as follows:
An abuse
of the process of the court arises where its process is used, not in good faith
and for proper purposes, but as a means of vexation or oppression or for
ulterior purposes, or, more simply, where the court is misused. In such case,
even if the pleading or endorsement does not offend any of the other specified
grounds for striking out, the facts may show that it constitutes an abuse of
the process of the court, and on this ground, the court may be justified in
striking out the whole pleading or endorsement or any offending part of it.
Even where a party strictly complies with the literal terms of the rules of
court, yet if he acts with an ulterior motive to the prejudice of the opposite
party, he may be guilty of an abuse of process, and where subsequent events
render what was originally a maintainable action one which becomes inevitably
doomed to failure, the action may be dismissed as an abuse of the process of
the court.
And,
ibid, at para. 435:
The power
to strike out, stay or dismiss under the court's inherent jurisdiction is
discretionary. It is a jurisdiction which will be exercised with great
circumspection and only where it is perfectly clear that the plea cannot
succeed; it ought to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
However, for this purpose the court is entitled to inquire into all the facts
and circumstances of the case, and to this end affidavit evidence is
admissible. In a proper case the court may exercise its jurisdiction even if
the application to strike out is made at a late stage of the proceedings.
And, ibid, at para. 443:
The
most important ground on which the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to
stay proceedings is that of abuse of process.
This is a power which, it has been emphasized, ought to be exercised sparingly
and only in exceptional cases. It is not confined to cases where the
endorsement of the writ or the pleading is an abuse of process, but may be
exercised where the abuse extends beyond the endorsement or pleading and is
demonstrated by almost inconvertible facts and circumstances proved by
affidavit evidence, if necessary. It will be exercised where the proceedings
are shown to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing or to be manifestly
groundless or in which there is clearly no cause of action in law or in equity.
The applicant for a stay on this ground must show not merely that the plaintiff
might not, or probably would not, succeed, but that he could not possibly
succeed on the basis of the pleadings and the facts of the case.
...
[20] One
further principle applicable is the obvious one that whether an action may be
deemed frivolous, vexatious, wholly without merit and/or an abuse of process
must be assessed in the context of the particular circumstances of the case.”
[166] In Michaud v.
Robertson et al. (1991), 1991 4581 (NB QB), 122 N.B.R. (2d) 117 (Q.B.),
affirmed 1992 4709 (NB CA), 1992 4709 (NBCA) the Court of Appeal states
that the mere naming of a person as a defendant and setting out a claim against
that party in the final paragraph of a Statement of Claim is not sufficient to
disclose a cause of action against that person. In my opinion,
allegations must be made against that person disclosing the cause of action,
otherwise the pleading will disclose no reasonable cause of action and ought to
be accordingly struck out.
Criminal Code Allegations
[167] A great portion of the
plaintiff's Statement of Claim in this case alleges breaches of the Criminal
Code of Canada and seeks relief pursuant to the Criminal Code.
In my opinion, pleading and relying upon the Criminal Code in a civil action is
clearly improper and should be struck pursuant to Rule 27.09(b) of the Rules
of Court.
[168] In Regin Properties
Ltd. V. Logics Inc., 1994 CarswellOnt. 573, the plaintiffs brought a motion
to, inter alia, amend its Statement of Claim to allege breaches of
certain sections of the Criminal Code. The Ontario Court of Justice
held that a plea that alleges the defendant's conduct contravened the Criminal
Code is improper.
[169] At paragraph 17, Master
Peppiatt stated:
Paragraphs 32-34 inclusive plead breaches of specified
sections of the Criminal Code. Mr. Kenny has referred me to the decision
of Senior Master Marriott in Morgan v. Tumosa 1963 186 (ON SC), [1963] 1
O.R. 550, in which he held that a plea that the defendant's conduct contravened
the Criminal Code was improper, and struck it out. With respect, I agree
with him
[170] In Morgan v. Tumosa,
1963 CarswellOnt 281, the Ontario Supreme Court stated at paragraph 2:
The pleading of sections of the Criminal Code imputes crimes
to the defendant and as such charges are not necessary in support of and are
irrelevant to the proof of the plaintiff's right to recover damages in a civil
action, the pleading is impertinent and therefore scandalous and should be
struck out: Daniel, Chancery Practice, 8th Ed.., p. 333.
[171] In Admassu v. Wedge,
[2009] O.J. No. 3256, affirmed [2010] O.J. No. 938, the defendants brought a
motion to have the plaintiff's claim struck as it did not disclose a cause of
action and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The
allegations in the Statement of Claim included conspiracy and breaches of the
Criminal Code. At paragraph 33, R.E. Mesbur, J. states:
33 The plaintiff goes on to say that the acts of the
defendants are ‘also a felony under Canada Criminal Act and thus criminal
Acts.' I assume he is referring to the Criminal Code. He
outlines various provisions of the Code, but has neither pleaded facts to
support them, or provided any evidence on this motion to do so.
These are simply bald allegations that constitute nothing more than legal
conclusions, not facts. The law is clear that a civil action is not
the proper forum to pursue criminal allegations. There is no ability in
this action to make findings of criminal guilt. These provisions must
therefore be struck as against both HSC and Dr. Wedge.
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on
Political and Civil Rights Provisions
[172] The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (the “Declaration”) was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. As a resolution of
the General Assembly, the declaration has no legally binding force. It
is, however, the first international instrument to articulate the rights and
freedoms of all people and many of its provisions are widely regarded as
reflecting general principles of humanity. The adoption of the
Declaration was followed by the codification of its provisions, with greater
precision and detail, into two international human rights treaties which
include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, Can. T.S. 1976, No. 47 and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966,
993 U.N.T.S. 3, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 46.
[173] The law is settled that
these international instruments do not create a cause of action within Canadian
domestic law and, as a consequence, any claims contained in the plaintiff's
Statement of Claim based on these instruments should be struck and are
accordingly ordered to be so struck.
[174] Baker v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC) involved an
application under the Immigration Act for an exemption from
deportation based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. One
of the issues considered by the Court in assessing an application under the Immigration
Act was the obligation of Canada with respect to the International
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Justice L'Heureux-Dubé speaking
for the Court writes at paragraph 69:
69
Another indicator of the importance of considering the interests of children
when making a compassionate and humanitarian decision is the ratification by
Canada of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the recognition of the
importance of children's rights and the best interests of children in other
international instruments ratified by Canada. International treaties and
conventions are not part of Canadian law unless they have been implemented by
statute: Francis v. The Queen 1956 79 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 618, at
p. 621; Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television
Commission, 1977 12 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141, at pp. 172-73. I
agree with the respondent and the Court of Appeal that the Convention has not
been implemented by Parliament. Its provisions therefore have no
direct application within Canadian Law. [Emphasis added]
[175] In Reid v. Strata
Plan LMS 2503, 2007 BCSC 1396 , the defendant brought an application to
strike out the plaintiff's action. As part of his action the plaintiff,
who owned a condominium within a complex owned by the defendant, alleged, inter
alia, that the defendant breached the provisions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights by failing to order other condominium owners to
remove items placed in a common area which the plaintiff alleged was contrary
to the condominium corporation by-laws.
[176] At paragraph 38,
Gropper, J. writes:
I agree with the strata corporation that none of the
provisions in these acts, nor the provision in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, discloses a reasonable cause of action. Clearly, the
Canadian Bill of Rights does not apply, as its application is limited to
matters within the federal jurisdiction. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights does not create a cause of action for the plaintiffs and no
authority was provided for such an assertion. Finally, the Charter
does not apply to the resolution and by-laws of the strata corporation.
[177] Rule 27.06(1) of the Rules
of Court provides that all pleadings shall contain the material facts on
which a party relies but not the evidence by which those facts are to be
proven.
[178] The authors of Pleadings:
Principles and Practice (Sir Jack Jacob & Iain S. Goldrein), (London:
Sweet & Maxwell, 1990) discuss the requirement to plead only material facts
at pages 46 – 47:
The
pleader must plead “facts,” and such facts must be “material.” The
requirement that the pleader must state “facts” means, not only that he must
not plead law, but also that he must not plead arguments, reasons, theories or
conclusions. The facts pleaded should be pleaded with precision and “certainty”
and must not be left to be inferred from vague or ambiguous expressions or from
statements of circumstances consistent with a different conclusion. (...)
The
facts must be “material,” ie. relevant to the claim or defence, as the case may
be. Accordingly, facts that are irrelevant or immaterial to the claim or
defence may be struck out.
[179] The defendants City
assert that, pursuant to Rule 27.09 of the Rules of Court, the
plaintiff's Claim, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and/ or an abuse of process.
Scandalous Pleadings
[180] According to the Jacob
Text, scandalous pleadings which are capable of being struck out can be
described as follows at page 221:
Allegations
in a pleading are scandalous if they state matters which are indecent or
offensive or are made for the mere purpose of abusing or prejudicing the
opposite party. Moreover, any “unnecessary” or “immaterial” allegations will be
struck out as being scandalous if they contain any imputation on the opposite
party or make any charge of misconduct or bad faith against him or anyone
else. Again, if degrading charges are made which are irrelevant, or if,
though the charge be relevant, unnecessary details are given, the pleading
become scandalous.
Frivolous or
Vexatious Pleadings
[181] Frivolous pleadings are
those which are without substance or unarguable and can include any one or more
of the following, as outlined in the Jacob Text at pages 222 - 223:
Thus, a proceeding may
be said to be frivolous when:
a. a party is trifling with the court; or
b. when to put it forward would be
wasting the time of the court; or
c. when it is not capable of reasoned
argument; or
d. it is without foundation; or
e. where it cannot possibly succeed; or
f. where the action is brought or
the defence is raised only for annoyance; or
g. to gain some fanciful advantage; or
h. when it can really lead to no possible
good.
[182] Finally, a pleading or
an action is “vexatious” when it lacks bona fides and is hopeless or oppressive
and tends to cause the opposite party unnecessary anxiety, trouble and expense
(Jacob Text, p. 223).
[183] In Donovan v. Price
Waterhouse Ltd. (2000), 2000 NBCA 59 , 232 N.B.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.), the Court
of Appeal upheld a decision by a motions judge relying on Rule 27.09 to strike
out substantial portions of a pleading on the basis that the impugned
allegations were not related to the issues between the parties. In its
decision, the Court of Appeal noted as follows at paragraph 8:
The
motions judge obviously struck the paragraphs on the basis that they were
frivolous because they were without substance or groundless to the trial
issues; to allow them to stand would simply waste the court's time and put the
opposite party through unnecessary expense. In our view, this was a proper
exercise of the motions judge's discretion under Rule 27.09.
Abuse of Process
[184] In R. v. Scott 1990
27 (SCC), [1990] 3 SCR 979 at p. 1007, McLachlin J. (as she then was)
commented on the doctrine of abuse of process as follows:
… abuse of
process may be established where: (1) the proceedings are oppressive or
vexatious; and, (2) violate the fundamental principles of justice underlying
the community's sense of fair play and decency.
In Canam
Enterprises, Justice Goudge explained the doctrine of abuse of process as
follows:
The
doctrine of abuse of process engages the inherent power of the court to prevent
the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would be manifestly unfair to a
party in the litigation before it or would in some other way bring the
administration of justice into disrepute.
6.
Abuse of process has been referred to as a doctrine engaging
the inherent power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure. As
such, it has been recognized as a flexible doctrine. An attempt to
re-litigate a claim that has already been determined is one example of abuse of
process. (see for example, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v.
City of Toronto and Douglas Stanley 2003 SCC 63 , [2003] 3 SCR 77
2003)
7.
Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice observed in Deep
v. the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 5248 , 2010
ONSC 5248 , that the general purpose of abuse of process is, for example, to
bar proceedings that are inconsistent with public policy considerations, such
as multiplicity of proceedings and inefficient use of judicial proceedings.
The Court commented that an individual may be a vexatious litigant where
that person has “persistently and without reasonable grounds” either
“instituted vexatious proceedings” or “conducted a proceeding in any court in a
vexatious manner.”
[185] According to University
of N.B. Student Union Inc. v. Smith (1988), 81 N.B.R. (2d) 397 (Q.B.), “An
abuse of the process of the court arises where its process is used, not in good
faith and for proper purposes, but as a means of vexation or oppression or for
ulterior purposes, or, more simply, where the process is misused.” (paragraph
18)
RULE 23.01(1)(b)
Pleadings - Failure to Disclose a
Reasonable Cause of Action
[186]
Rule 23.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Court allows the Court to strike out a
pleading which does not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
[187] Pleadings define the
issues for the Court and allow the parties to set out their respective
positions. The content of a party's pleading is based on the facts and
the law and it is framed by the party, constrained by the rules of pleading
under the Rules of Court.
[188] In Perley v. Sypher
(1990), 96 N.B.R. (2d) 354 (Q.B.), the Court considered a statement of claim
which contained “many irrelevant and superfluous allegations” and which “in
several instances violates the rule against pleading the evidence by which
facts are to be proved.” Pursuant to Rule 23.01, the court dismissed the
action and struck out those portions of the claim which failed to disclose a
reasonable cause of action, as against certain defendants.
Essential Elements of
Pleadings
[189] It is trite law that a
pleading must contain the essential elements of a cause of action or defence
along with material facts in support thereof.
[190]
With regard to an allegation of negligence, the plaintiff must plead that (1) a
duty of care is owed to the plaintiff; (2) there has been a breach of that duty
(based on the standard of care expected in the circumstances) and (3) damages have
resulted from that breach (Linda D. Rainaldi, Remedies in Tort,
looseleaf (Toronto, ON: Carswell, 1987), p. 16.I-40).
[191]
With regard to the alleged infliction of mental suffering and/ or nervous
shock, the essential elements of this tort include (1) flagrant or outrageous
conduct on the part of the defendant; (2) which is calculated to produce harm;
and (3) which results in a visible and provable injury to the plaintiff (see Remedies
in Tort, supra, p. 10-11).
[192]
To make out a cause of action for misfeasance in public office, a plaintiff
must establish (1) that the defendant is a public officer (i.e. must hold a
public office, not just be a public employee); (2) the defendant acted (or
omitted to act) in a way that was deliberately unlawful ; (3) the defendant
acted with targeted malice toward the plaintiff or knowledge that the unlawful
act would probably hurt the plaintiff; (4) the defendant thereby cause the
plaintiff material damage (Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada,
3rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2010) p. 840).
[193]
With regard to the tort of malicious prosecution, the required elements include
(1) proceedings initiated by the defendant; (2) proceedings must have
terminated in favour of the plaintiff; (3) plaintiff must show proceedings
instituted without reasonable cause or absence or reasonable and probable
cause; and (4) the defendant acted with malice or for an improper purpose other
than carrying the law into effect (The Law of Torts in Canada, supra,
page 810).
Pleading not Capable
of Amendment
[194]
Where a pleading merely names a party as a defendant and sets out a bare
allegation against them, such is not sufficient to disclose a cause of action
against that person (Michaud v. Robertson (1991), 1991 4581 (NB QB), 122
N.B.R. (2d) 117 (Q.B., affirmed on appeal (1992), 1992 4709 (NB CA), 126 N.B.R.
(2d) 247 (C.A.)).
[195]
Where a pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, that is not a
deficiency that is capable of being cured by an amendment; rather, the claim
must be struck (Michaud v. Robertson, supra).
Excessive Use of
Force
[196]
With regard to the alleged excessive use of force, the Courts have held that
“excessive use of force” does not constitute a separate and recognized cause of
action (Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2008), 2008 ONCA 799 , 301
D.L.R. (4th) 540 (Ont. C.A.).
OUTRAGEOUS
AND VICIOUS CHARACTER ATTACKS
[197] As mentioned, the
plaintiff's Statement of Claim is 358 paragraphs and 101 pages long. The
allegations contained therein are repetitive, unintelligible, ambiguous, and
contain unnecessary or irrelevant and in many cases outrageous and vicious
allegations and character attacks on New Brunswick civil servants, doctors, and
police officers which, are without foundation, are raised only for annoyance,
cannot possibly succeed, have and will cause unnecessary anxiety, trouble and
expense and, generally, are improperly drafted as the plaintiff has failed to
comply with the Rules of Court in drafting her Claim. In addition,
the Claim contains allegations of Criminal Code offences which are not
proper allegations in a civil action.
[198] It is my opinion that
the plaintiff's Statement of Claim is replete with allegations which can be
considered scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process of the
Court.
[199] By way of example, I am
of the view that the underlined portions of the following paragraphs from Ms.
Greene's Statement of Claim constitute scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pleadings
and an abuse of process which should be struck:
25. Greene alleges that Chief Barry Macknight sent her a
face book message in the early winter of 2011, which Greene reported to Chief
MacKnight and asked him for a response as it was a picture of a police officer
in uniform swinging a large bat. Again the Chief refused to respond or look
into.
...
103. The defendant Constables:
(i) Constable Nancy
Rideout (hereafter Rideout);
(ii) Constable Andrew
Phillips (hereafter Phillips);
(iii) Constable Sebastien
Blanchette (hereafter Blanchette);
(iv) Constable Darryl
Carter (hereinafter Carter);
were at all material times hereto residents of the Province
of New Brunswick and were all material times not incapacitated and of sound
mind and members of the City of Fredericton Police Force, and at all material
times hereto were on duty. These officers violated Greene's Charter
rights under s. 7, 10, 11, 15, 24(1). These peace officers turned out to
be southern-style vigilantes, on a mission to do damage to Greene, and were
corrupt and deceitful and cared less about the safety and protection of Greene.
These officers were all subject, at all times, to the laws and authorities
under the Criminal Code of Canada (hereafter CCC) and the UN Code of Conduct
for Law Enforcement Officials, all four constables mentioned above,
deliberately and, with malice, committed the following offences against Greene
on May 13/2011, without consent, and endangering the life of the plaintiff:
(1) Excessive Force;
(2) Assault (s. 267);
(3) Aggravated Assault (s. 268);
(4) Torture (handcuff tightening)
(s. 269.1);
104. The plaintiff pleads and relies on the Criminal Code,
Section 26: R.S., c. C-34, s.
"Everyone who is authorized by law to use force is
criminally responsible, for any excess thereof according to the nature and
quality of the act that constitutes the excess; "
105. The plaintiff pleads and relies on the Criminal Code,
Section 265 (1)
A person commits and assault when without the consent of
another person, applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or
indirectly;
Attempts or threatens, by an act or gesture, to apply, force
to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on
reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or while
openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereofhe accosts of
impedes another person or begs;
...
126. The plaintiff relies upon section 52 of the Canadian
Constitution and states she is additionally entitled to a remedy for the
unconstitutional sections of the N.B. Mental Health Act, particularly sections
66(1) (2) (3). Also sections 7.4. and 8 can and are often debated for their
clarity which is unconstitutional and Greene states that any Provincial statute
that is not in concert with the Constitution and Charter and their basic
principles of fairness and the concept of "Let right be done" must be
struck down.
...
210. McPherson suggested Greene revisit the Ombudsman, Mr.
Richard. who she told was also abusing his position and office and going
behind Greene's back to the Minister of Public Safety Police Director, then
Dick Isabelle, who copied Deputy Minister Michael Quigley, his secretary, Ms.
Debbie Richards. and who then disgracefully copied the Pierre Beaudoin,
Director of the N.B. Police Commmission. The N.B. Police Commission had not yet
rendered its decision about the sloppy handling of Greene's complaints
about the Fredericton City Police of no investigation by Chief MacKnight and
his rank and file, extremely biased responses, based on incompetent, groundless
and unfair blame on false legislative barriers. MacKnight's lack of leadership
was very evident as is the lack of leadership of the Chair of the N.B. Police
commission.
CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION
[200]
For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Greene's Statement of
Claim is nothing more than a vicious and hostile abuse of the process of this
Court and ought to be struck in its entirety. Ms. Greene's Statement of
Claim is loaded with opinions, character assassinations and improper
innuendos. She asserts that some of the defendants in this action are
trying to murder her in order to silence her. Fueling the plaintiff's
entire litigation attack is her opinion that there is something wrong with
ambulance service in New Brunswick and there is corruption within the ranks of
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc. She alleges that certain of the defendants
tried to murder her so that she could not repeat allegations concerning
corruption and a conspiracy involving Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., the police
and various New Brunswick government elected officials, employees and agencies.
[201]
Ms. Greene assassinates the reputations and characters of several civil
servants, doctors and police officers by calling them murderers, evil,
vigilantes, incompetent, crooked. She says that all of the defendants are
engaged in a malicious conspiracy against her. Ms. Greene alleges that
part of the conspiracy is to have the police “take her out” literally and
physically to prevent her from uncovering the corruption. She even
alleges that the media may be “gagged” by the New Brunswick
Government. I find these allegations to be baseless and a vicious
abuse of the process of this Court.
[202]
It is plain and obvious that Ms. Greene's Statement of Claim discloses no
reasonable cause of action and has no chance of success. The plaintiff's
disagreement or displeasure with government policy and her suspicions of
corruption are not sufficient to create a cause of action.
[203] Pursuant to the inherent
jurisdiction of the Court and Rule 27.09 and Rule 23.01(1)(a) and (b) of the
Rules of Court even adopting a liberal and generous reading to accommodate
drafting deficiencies, it is my opinion that the Statement of Claim fails to
provide any factual basis to support a cause of action in conspiracy or any
other reasonable cause of action arguable at law. Such statements are
nothing more than inflammatory, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious statements
of opinion. I accordingly strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim in
its entirety with no right to amend.
[204] It is the very essence
of justice to be fair so as to prevent the defendants from being harassed and
put to the expense of defending frivolous, vexatious and hopeless litigation.
[205] I conclude that the
process of this Court is not being used by Ms. Greene in good faith and for
proper purposes but rather as a means of vexation, oppression and ulterior
purposes. As part of Ms. Greene's agenda she has launched a collateral
attack against several New Brunswick civil servants in an attempt to destroy
their reputations.
[206] It would appear that the
plaintiff has issues with respect to responses to inquiries or complaints that
she does not agree. However, in my opinion, such disagreement or
displeasure is not sufficient to create a cause of action.
[207] In the interests of
justice the Court must exercise its function as a gate keeper. The
principles that inform the determination of a defendant's motion to strike
under Rule 23.01(1)(b) are well settled and can be summarized as follows:
1) the only question for judicial resolution is
whether it is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose
the essential elements of a cause of action tenable at law. That
conclusion should be reached only in the clearest of cases;
2) correlatively, absent exceptional
circumstances, the court must accept as proved all facts asserted in the
Statement of Claim and abstain from looking beyond the pleading itself and any
documents referred to therein.
[208] Clearly, the plaintiff
is of the opinion that there is something untoward with ambulance service in
New Brunswick. Such statements of opinion are not only irrelevant, but clearly
do not establish a cause of action. Her Statement of Claim lacks bona
fides and is hopeless. The process of this Court is being misused by Ms.
Greene. This Court's process has not been used by Ms. Greene in good
faith and for proper purposes and is being used for ulterior purposes, namely
to embarrass the defendants. She has brought the administration of
justice into disrepute.
[209] Abuse of process is a
doctrine engaging the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to prevent the misuse
of its proceedings. It is in the interests of justice that this Court
must exercise its function as a gatekeeper and prevent the abuse of its
process. Accordingly, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
along with Rules 27.09 and Rule 23.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Court and
the immunity provisions as referenced in these reasons, an order will issue
striking the plaintiff's Statement of Claim in its entirety against all of the
defendants. The defendants' Motions are converted into a Motion for
Judgment pursuant to Rule 37.10 of the Rules of Court hereby
completely dismissing the plaintiff's action without the right to amend.
COSTS
[210] Costs are awarded and
payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants in the amount of
$27,000.00 inclusive of disbursements broken down as follows:
1) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
Ambulance New Brunswick Inc., Dr. Everett Chalmers Regional
Hospital, Horizon Health Network (Zone 3), Regional Health Authority B of the
Province of New Brunswick, Melody Austin, Margaret Bannister, Rod Borden,
Dennis Boyce, Nancy Chase, Jill Cowie, Jean Daigle, Eliza Margaret Drummond,
Chrystal Dunphy, David Ferguson, Andrea Gatto, Mavis Hurley, Roger Labelle,
John Laidlaw,Nancy Lindsay, Jennifer Marshall, Nicole Moore, Christa
Morton, Cheryl Mulholland, Donald J. Peters, Michelle Smith, Michelle Tizzard,
Nichole Tupper, Anne Walsh and Greg Zed
2) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, Dr. Ed
Schollenberg and Dr. Lisa Sutherland
3) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
New Brunswick Police Commission, Nurses Association of New
Brunswick, Paramedic Association of New Brunswick, Pierre Beaudin, Michael
Connors, Chris Hood, Francois Levert, Bernard Richard, Peter Seheult and Anne
Bertrand
4) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
Matthew Tweedie, Clarence Bennett and Stewart McKelvey
5) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
Association of New Brunswick Licensed Practical Nurses and
Kevin Symes
6) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
Province of New Brunswick, Attorney General for New
Brunswick, Minister of Justice, Marie-Claude Blais, Kelly Lamrock, Former
Attorney General for the Province of New Brunswick, Madeline Dube, Minister of
Health,
Mary Schryer, Ken Ross, Charles Murray, Robert
Trevors, Minister of Public Safety, Kevin Mole, Assistant Deputy Minister of
Public Safety, Dick Isabelle, Director of Policing for the Minister of Public
Safety, Bruce Fitch and Elgee Giselle Millett
7) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
Dr. David Addleman, Dr. Manoj Bhargava, Dr. Robert Daigle and
Dr. Kulli Poder
8) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
City of Fredericton, Barry McKnight, Nancy Rideout, Andrew
Phillips, Darrell Carter, Sabastien Blanchett and Philip Toole
9) One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00
collectively to the following defendants:
Medavie Blue Cross and Medavie Inc., Allen Stephen, Robin
O'Hara, George McLellan, Pierre Yves Julien,
_____________________________________
Peter S. Glennie
A Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench
of New Brunswick
No comments:
Post a Comment