In 1966, Cohen told a young CBC host named Adrienne Clarkson that he was “not interested in posterity.” Perhaps Madame Clarkson should after she reviews the pdf file hereto attached N'esy Pas?

 ---------- Original message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:59:16 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Dominic Cardy If so then you neo cons best start feeding your Butter Tarts to your pussy cat named Puffin because they are clearly rotting your brains N'esy Pas?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville and Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.

-------------------

Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e pour Vancouver Granville et ministre de la justice et procureur g?n?ral du Canada.

En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance adress?e ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons ? vous assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Mellish, Robert" rmellish@cbcl.ca
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:56:45 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: [QUESTIONABLE]  Yo Dominic Cardy If so then you neo cons best start feeding your Butter Tarts to your pussy cat named Puffin because they are clearly rotting your brains N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com

I will be away from my office until Monday, Dec. 4th, and will reply to your message upon my return.
- Bob Mellish

---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR postur@for.is
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:11:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Yo Dominic Cardy If so then you neo cons best start feeding your Butter Tarts to your pussy cat named Puffin because they are clearly rotting your brains N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com


Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið  / Your request has been received

Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið  / Prime Minister's Office


---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur IRR postur@irr.is
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 04:09:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Yo Dominic Cardy If so then you neo cons best start feeding your Butter Tarts to your pussy cat named Puffin because they are clearly rotting your brains N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com

Þessu pósthólfi hefur verið lokað

Þar sem innanríkisráðuneytinu hefur nú verið skipt í tvö ný ráðuneyti hefur
netföngum verið breytt:
- Vegna erinda til dómsmálaráðuneytis sendið póst á postur@dmr.is
- Vegna erinda til samgöngu- og sveitarstjórnarráðuneytis sendið póst á
postur@srn.is

This e-mail is out of order

As two new Government ministries commenced operation on 1 May 2017 ? the
Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Transport and Local Government ?
which took the place of the Ministry of the Interior the e-mail addresses
have changed:
- For requests to the Ministry of Justice - use postur@dmr.is
- For requests to the Ministry of Transport and Local Government - use
postur@srn.is


---------- Original message ----------
From: Green Party of Canada | Parti vert du Canada info@greenparty.ca
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 01:57:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Yo Dominic Cardy If so then you neo cons best start feeding your Butter Tarts to your pussy cat named Puffin because they are clearly rotting your brains N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com

-- Please reply above this line --


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:56:30 -0400
Subject: Yo Dominic Cardy If so then you neo cons best start feeding your Butter Tarts to your pussy cat named Puffin because they are clearly rotting your brains N'esy Pas?
To: Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.com,  hugh.flemming@gnb.ca, jake.stewart@gnb.ca, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, newsroom@globeandmail.ca, Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca, nick.brown@gnb.ca, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, Benoit.Bourque@gnb.ca, Ed.Doherty@gnb.ca, Robert.Jones@cbc.ca, Dave.Young@nbeub.ca,  kelly@lamrockslaw.com, law@stevenfoulds.ca,  general@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca, charles.murray@gnb.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, leader leader@greenparty.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca,  elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca, greg.byrne@gnb.ca, Jack.Keir@gnb.ca, len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com, postur@for.is, postur@irr.is, rmellish@cbcl.ca

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/12/in-1966-cohen-told-young-cbc-host-named.html


---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom newsroom@globeandmail.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 23:19:56 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: In 1966, Cohen told a young CBC host named Adrienne Clarkson that he was “not interested in posterity.” Perhaps Madame Clarkson should after she reviews the pdf file hereto attached N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.

If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com

If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com

Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com

This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases.


---------- Original message ----------
From: Info@gg.ca
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 23:19:36 +0000
Subject: Auto Response / Réponse automatique
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for writing to the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. We appreciate hearing your views and suggestions. Responses to specific inquiries can be expected within three weeks. Please note that general comments and opinions may not receive a response.

*****

Nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit au Bureau du secrétaire du gouverneur général. Nous apprécions votre point de vue et vos suggestions. Il faut prévoir trois semaines pour une réponse à une demande précise. Veuillez noter qu’il n’y a pas nécessairement de suivi pour les opinions et les commentaires généraux qui sont envoyés.


---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 23:21:03 +0000
Subject: RE: In 1966, Cohen told a young CBC host named Adrienne Clarkson that he was “not interested in posterity.” Perhaps Madame Clarkson should after she reviews the pdf file hereto attached N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com

The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.

Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos commentaires.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 19:19:26 -0400
Subject: In 1966, Cohen told a young CBC host named Adrienne Clarkson that he was “not interested in posterity.” Perhaps Madame Clarkson should after she reviews the pdf file hereto attached N'esy Pas?
To: info@gg.ca, ac@ahouse12.com, Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca, dan.bussieres@gnb.ca, briangallant10@gmail.com, Davidc.Coon@gmail.com, BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.com, investigations@cbc.ca, newstips@cnn.com, news@hilltimes.com, news@dailymail.co.uk, news-tips@nytimes.com, news919@rogers.com, nmoore@bellmedia.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, jeremy.keefe@globalnews.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, newsroom@globeandmail.ca, gopublic@cbc.ca, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca,  Bill.Morneau@canada.ca, atlanticnews@ctv.ca,  steve.murphy@ctv.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, Stephen.Harper@dentons.com, Jean.Chretien@dentons.com, brian.mulroney@nortonrosefulbright.com, andrew.baumberg@fct-cf.gc.ca, Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca, marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca,  Peter.Edge@ice.dhs.gov, PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.com, bernard.lord@medavie.bluecross.ca, aaron.veinotte@medavie.bluecross.ca, martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca, andre@jafaust.com, leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com, Frank.McKenna@td.com, david.eidt@gnb.ca, jfurey@nbpower.com, wharrison@nbpower.com, david@lutz.nb.ca, rgorman@nbeub.ca, ecdesmond@nbeub.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca,
There is something rather ironic that the Governor's General office
noticed long ago what the 3 Stooges who sat on the bench in the
Federal Court Appeal on May 24th, 2017 took 5 months to study but
missed it??? (Methinks NOT)

The obvious fact is that I wrote all the letters that the 3 Stooges
consider oh so nasty to all the evil smiling bastards were composed
and sent only AFTER I was illegally barred for politcal reasons while
runnning the election of the 38h Parliament N'esy Pas Mr McKenna, Mr
Lord,  Mr Harper,  Mr Gaudet,  Mr Mulroney, Mr Chretien,  Mr.
Richardson, Mr. Bussieres,and Chucky "The Wefare Bum" Leblanc?>?

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/leonard-cohen-montreal-legacy/

http://adrienneclarkson.com/events/2017/3/12/art-for-tomorrow-boundaries-identity-and-the-public-realm

To arrange an interview with
Mme. Clarkson contact:
Abra Rissi
Office of The Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson
+1.647.993.2045 ac@ahouse12.com

Culture, Citizenship, and Belonging

A powerful panel of national and civic leaders discuss how museums and
culture play a key role in establishing and understanding of
nationhood and civic identity, and the relations between nations.

Panelists:
The Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson, 26th Governor General of Canada
(1999-2005), Co-Chair, Institute for Canadian Citizenship
Georgios Kaminis, Mayor of Athens
Irina Bokova, Director General, Unesco

Moderator:
Roger Cohen, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times

https://twitter.com/APClarkson

Adrienne Clarkson
@ APClarkson
Toronto, Canada
26th Governor General of Canada / 26e gouverneure générale du Canada,
Co-founder and Chair of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship
icc-icc.ca
adrienneclarkson.com

You are blocked from following @APClarkson and viewing @APClarkson's Tweets

YEA RIGHT some ethical old lady EH?

So she thinks However how did I get her self promoting photo from Twitter?

Adrienne Clarkson @APClarkson
It was wonderful visit to @AmbStephaneDion and our Embassy in Berlin
@CanEmbGermany, which I opened 12 years ago. Glad to be back!!
pic.twitter.com/7rGRqmVdYC
3:17 PM - 23 Nov 2017

Twitter
by: Adrienne Clarkson @APClarkson


http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html

 David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15



                      Court File No. T-1557-15

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS

                           Plaintiff
and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                           Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

The Parties

1.      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crown) is Elizabeth II, the Queen of
England, the Protector of the Faith of the Church of England, the
longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and one of the
wealthiest persons in the world. Canada pays homage to the Queen
because she remained the Head of State and the Chief Executive Officer
of Canada after the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 came into force
on April 17, 1982. The standing of the Queen in Canada was explained
within the 2002 Annual Report FORM 18-K filed by Canada with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states as
follows:

     “The executive power of the federal Government is vested in the
Queen, represented by the Governor General, whose powers are exercised
on the advice of the federal Cabinet, which is responsible to the
House of Commons. The legislative branch at the federal level,
Parliament, consists of the Crown, the Senate and the House of
Commons.”

     “The executive power in each province is vested in the Lieutenant
Governor, appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the
federal Cabinet. The Lieutenant Governor’s powers are exercised on the
advice of the provincial cabinet, which is responsible to the
legislative assembly. Each provincial legislature is composed of a
Lieutenant Governor and a legislative assembly made up of members
elected for a period of five years.”

2.      Her Majesty the Queen is the named defendant pursuant to
sections 23(1) and 36 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Some
of the state actors whose duties and actions are at issue in this
action are the Prime Minister, Premiers, Governor General, Lieutenant
Governors, members of the Canadian Forces (CF), and Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP), federal and provincial Ministers of Public
Safety, Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Finance, Speakers, Clerks,
Sergeants-at-Arms and any other person acting as Aide-de-Camp
providing security within and around the House of Commons, the
legislative assemblies or acting as security for other federal,
provincial and municipal properties.

3.      Her Majesty the Queen’s servants the RCMP whose mandate is to
serve and protect Canadian citizens and assist in the security of
parliamentary properties and the protection of public officials should
not deny a correspondence from a former Deputy Prime Minister who was
appointed to be Canada’s first Minister of Public Safety in order to
oversee the RCMP and their cohorts. The letter that helped to raise
the ire of a fellow Canadian citizen who had never voted in his life
to run for public office four times thus far is quoted as follows:

  “Mr. David R. Amos
            Jan 3rd, 2004
153Alvin Avenue
   Milton, MA U.S.A. 02186

                Dear Mr. Amos

      Thank you for your letter of November 19th, 2003, addressed to
                my predecessor, the Honourble Wayne Easter, regarding
your safety.
                I apologize for the delay in responding.

      If you have any concerns about your personal safety, I can only
               suggest that you contact the police of local
jurisdiction. In addition, any
               evidence of criminal activity should be brought to
their attention since the
               police are in the best position to evaluate the
information and take action
               as deemed appropriate.

       I trust that this information is satisfactory.

                                                              Yours sincerely

 A. Anne McLellan”

4.      DAVID RAYMOND AMOS (Plaintiff), a Canadian Citizen and the
first Chief of the Amos Clan, was born in Sackville, New Brunswick
(NB) on July 17th, 1952.

5.      The Plaintiff claims standing in this action as a citizen
whose human rights and democratic interests are to be protected by due
performance of the obligations of Canada’s public officials who are
either elected or appointed and all servants of the Crown whose
mandate is to secure the public safety, protect public interests and
to uphold and enforce the rule of law. The Crown affirms his right to
seek relief for offences to his rights under section 24(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Paragraphs 6 to 13
explain the delay in bringing this action before Federal Court and
paragraphs 25 to 88 explain this matter.

6.      The Plaintiff states that pursuant to the democratic rights
found in Section 3 of the Charter he was a candidate in the elections
of the membership of the 38th and 39th Parliaments in the House of
Commons and a candidate in the elections of the memberships of the
legislative assemblies in Nova Scotia (NS) and NB in 2006.

7.      The Plaintiff states that if he is successful in finding a
Chartered Accountant to audit his records as per the rules of
Elections Canada, he will attempt to become a candidate in the
election of the membership of the 42nd Parliament.

8.      The Plaintiff states that beginning in January of 2002, he
made many members of the RCMP and many members of the corporate media
including employees of a Crown Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC) well aware of the reason why he planned to return to
Canada and become a candidate in the next federal election. In May of
2004, all members seated in the 37th Parliament before the writ was
dropped for the election of the 38th Parliament and several members of
the legislative assemblies of NB and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)
knew the reason is the ongoing rampant public corruption. Evidence of
the Plaintiff’s concerns can be found within his documents that the
Office of the Governor General acknowledged were in its possession ten
years ago before the Speech from the Throne in 2004. The Governor
General’s letter is as follows:


  “September 11th, 2004
          Dear Mr. Amos,

           On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne
Clarkson,
           I acknowledge receipt of two sets of documents and CD
regarding corruption,
           one received from you directly, and the other forwarded to
us by the Office of
           the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.

                       I regret to inform you that the Governor
General cannot intervene in
           matters that are the responsibility of elected officials
and courts of Justice of
           Canada. You already contacted the various provincial
authorities regarding
           your concerns, and these were the appropriate steps to take.

                                                  Yours sincerely.
                                                              Renee
Blanchet
                                                              Office
of the Secretary
                                                              to the
Governor General”

9.      The Plaintiff states that the documents contain proof that the
Crown by way of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy
Prime Minister knew that he was the whistleblower offering his
assistance to Maher Arar and his lawyers in the USA. The Governor
General acknowledged his concerns about the subject of this complaint
and affirmed that the proper provincial authorities were contacted but
ignored the Plaintiff’s faxes and email to the RCMP and the Solicitor
General in November of 2003 and his tracked US Mail to the Solicitor
General and the Commissioner of the RCMP by way of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) in December of 2003
and the response he received from the Minister of Public Safety/Deputy
Prime Minister in early 2004. One document was irrefutable proof that
there was no need whatsoever to create a Commission of Inquiry into
Maher Arar concerns at about the same point in time. That document is
a letter from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office
Inspector General (OIG complaint no. C04-01448) admitting contact with
his office on November 21, 2003 within days of the Plaintiff talking
to the office of Canada’s Solicitor General while he met with the US
Attorney General and one day after the former Attorney General of New
York (NY) and the former General Counsel of the SEC testified at a
public hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee about
investigations of the mutual fund industry.

10.  The Plaintiff states that another document that the Plaintiff
received during the election of the 39th Parliament further supported
the fact he was a whistleblower about financial crimes. In December of
2006 a member of the RCMP was ethical enough to admit that he
understood the Plaintiff’s concerns and forwarded his response to the
acting Commissioner of the RCMP and others including a NB Cabinet
Minister Michael B. Murphy QC. The Crown is well aware that any member
sitting in the last days of the 37th Parliament through to the end of
the 41st Parliament could have stood in the House of Commons and asked
the Speaker if the Crown was aware of the Plaintiff’s actions. All
parliamentarians should have wondered why his concerns and that of Mr.
Arar’s were not heard by a committee within the House of Commons in
early 2004. Instead, the Crown created an expensive Commission to
delay the Arar matter while he sued the governments of Canada and the
USA and his wife ran in the election of the 38th Parliament. In 2007,
Arar received a $10-million settlement from the Crown and the Prime
Minister gave him an official apology yet the US government has never
admitted fault. A month after the writ was dropped for the election of
the 42nd Parliament and CBC is reporting Syrian concerns constantly,
Mr. Arar’s lawyer announced that the RCMP will attempt to extradite a
Syrian intelligence officer because it had laid a charge in absentia
and a Canada-wide warrant and Interpol notice were issued. The
Plaintiff considers such news to be politicking practiced by the
Minister of Public Safety. He noticed the usually outspoken Mr. Arar
made no comment but his politically active wife had lots to say on
CBC. Meanwhile, the RCMP continues to bar a fellow citizen from
parliamentary properties because he exercised the same democratic
rights after he had offered his support to Arar by way of his American
lawyers. The aforementioned letter about financial crimes was from the
Inspector General for Tax Administration in the US Department of the
Treasury. Mr Arar’s lawyers, the RCMP, the Canadian Revenue Agency and
the US Internal Revenue Service still refuse to even admit TIGTA
complaint no. 071-0512-0055-C exists. However, the Commissioner of
Federal Court, the Queen’s Privy Council Office and other agencies
were made well aware of it before the Speech from the Throne in 2006.



http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do


Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
   
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
   
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
   
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
   
A-48-16
Date: 20171030

Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
   
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
   
THE COURT



Date: 20171030

Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
   
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Respondent on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant)
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT

I.                    Introduction

[1]               On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
(Claim at para. 96).

[2]               On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
Prothontary’s Order).


[3]               On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).


[4]               Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
cross-appeal.


II.                 Preliminary Matter

[5]               Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
several judges but did not name those judges.

[6]               Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. F-7:


5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]
   
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
   
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.


[7]               However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
   
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
   
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.


[9]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
(section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
appeal book.


[10]           Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
conflict in any matter related to him.


[11]           On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.


[12]           During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
such judge had a conflict.


[13]           The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
was a member of such firm.


[14]           During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
Court of Canada over 10 years ago.


[15]           The documents that he submitted in relation to the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
“John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
[16]           Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
apprehension of bias:
60        In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
reasonable apprehension of bias:
… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly."

[17]           The issue to be determined is whether an informed
person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
(4th) 193).

[18]           The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
27        Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.


28        The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."


29        It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.


30        That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
            To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
31        There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
his former firm for a considerable period of time.


32        In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
events from over a decade ago.
(emphasis added)

[19]           Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
Webb hearing this appeal.

[20]           Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
(2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.

[21]           In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.

[22]           Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.

[23]           As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
to recuse himself.

[24]           Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.

[25]           Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.


III.               Issue

[26]           The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?

IV.              Analysis

A.                 Standard of Review

[27]           Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
[Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
(Hospira at paras. 82-83).

[28]           In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
interfere.


B.                 Did the Judge err in interfering with the
Prothonotary’s Order?

[29]           The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:

17.       Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
(…)


21.       The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
[footnotes omitted].


[30]           The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
para. 27).


[31]           The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:


[13]      As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:

a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;

b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and

c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
(Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).

[32]           The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
“political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).

[33]           This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:

…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
“The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
of process…

To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
(at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).

[34]           Applying the Housen standard of review to the
Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.

[35]           The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
supporting a cause of action.

[36]           In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).

V.                 Conclusion
[37]           For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
without leave to amend.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
"David G. Near"
J.A.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.



FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
DOCKET:
   
A-48-16

   

STYLE OF CAUSE:
   
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

   

PLACE OF HEARING:
   
Fredericton,
New Brunswick

DATE OF HEARING:
   
May 24, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
   
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.

DATED:
   
October 30, 2017


   
   
   
APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos

   
For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
(on his own behalf)

Jan Jensen

   
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
   
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL