A correction was made to my Federal Court of Appeal Decision on December 06, 2017 but the public and I not informed what it was until March 29th, 2018

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:07:59 -0400
Subject: Re: A-48-16 Corrected Reasons for Judgment
To: CAS-SATJ DECISIONS <cas-satj-decisions@cas-satj.gc.ca>,
Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca, "marc.giroux" <marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>, amelie.lavictoire@cas-satj.gc.ca, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, information@fca-caf.gc.ca, "daniel.gosselin" <daniel.gosselin@cas-satj.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,

Julie.Macfarlane@uwindsor.ca, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>,
"bill.pentney" <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>

Thank You whomever you are.

However I hope you understand that it is the Corrected Reasons for
Judgment that I must argue before the Supreme Court.

Furthermore I have no understanding whatsoever as to why you people
falsely claimed that you sent me this on December 1st, 2017. Please
explain.

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 899 0369


---------- Original message ----------
From: CAS-SATJ DECISIONS <cas-satj-decisions@cas-satj.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:11:02 +0000
Subject: A-48-16 Corrected Reasons for Judgment
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

   

    Federal Court of Appeal


Dear Mr. Amos:

Further to your email of March 28, 2018, please find attached a copy
of the Corrected Reasons for Judgment dated October 30, 2017. Please
note that the only correction is the spelling of the word
"Prothonotary" at line 1 of paragraph 29. The Registry does not
certify Reasons for Judgment, only Orders and Judgments.



Registry

613-996-6795

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
Notes	A correction was made on December 06, 2017.

 Date Modified: 2018-03-29

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 Prothonotary’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

http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All

PROCEEDINGS QUERIES

Recorded entry(ies) for A-48-16

Court number information

Court Number :	A-48-16
Style of Cause :	DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Proceeding Category :	Appeals	Nature :	Appeal (S.27 - Interloc.) - Others
Type of Action :	Non-Action

88 records found for court number A-48-16

Doc	Date Filed	Office	Recorded Entry Summary
-	2018-02-27	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from the Appellant (David raymond Amos) and the Respondent(Jan Jensen) via email. with respect to ID 87 placed on file on 27-FEB-2018
-	2017-12-01	Ottawa	Corrections to page(s) 13 of the Reasons of The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason that were dated 30-OCT-2017 received on 01-DEC-2017 Corrected pages sent to the appellant(David Raymond) and the Respondent (Jan Jensen).
-	2017-11-01	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from the Appellant (sent by email & confirmed on voicemail) and the Respondent (by email) with respect to the Judgment and Reasons for Judgment dated October 30, 2017. placed on file on 01-NOV-2017
-	2017-10-31	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from the Registry of the FCA dated 31-OCT-2017 transmitting a copy of the Judgment and Reasons for Judgment to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau and the Actions section of the FC. placed on file.
41	2017-10-30	Ottawa	Reasons for Judgment of the Court/ The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason dated 30-OCT-2017 The Court's decision is with regard to Appeal The Court's decision is with regard to Cross-appeal Filed on 30-OCT-2017
40	2017-10-30	Ottawa	Judgment dated 30-OCT-2017 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Appeal Result: dismissed The Court's decision is with regard to Cross-appeal Result: granted Filed on 30-OCT-2017 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 300 page(s) 440 - 440 (Final decision)
-	2017-10-30	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb dated 30-OCT-2017 directing " ... The Court considers the solicitor of record for the respondent to be Nathalie G. Drouin, Deputy Attorney General of Canada." received on 30-OCT-2017
-	2017-07-19	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 19-JUL-2017 re: forwarding the parties' submissions in response to the Court's direction dated June 8, 2017.
39	2017-07-14	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 14-JUL-2017 confirming service of doc.38 on the respondent by Xpresspost on 14-JUL-2017 filed on 14-JUL-2017
38	2017-07-14	Fredericton	Written submissions on behalf of the appellant in reply to doc.34 filed on 14-JUL-2017
-	2017-07-10	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from the Appellant by email and the Respondent by fax with respect to the Directions dated July 7, 2017 placed on file on 10-JUL-2017
-	2017-07-10	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb dated 07-JUL-2017 directing "Mr. Amos' summary received on June 26, 2017 in response to the Direction of the Court of June 8, 2017 is to be accepted for filing." received on 10-JUL-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
-	2017-07-10	Fredericton	Memorandum to file from Catharine M. Wilson dated 10-JUL-2017 On June 26, 2017 the Registry received further written submissions from the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal on the issue of conflict of interest as per the direction of Webb, JA dated June 8, 2017. The direction allowed for a summary of the issue, not to exceed 5 pages and any additional documents relevant to the issue, to be submitted on or before June 23, 2017. I sent the Appellant's summary/further submissions to the Court for direction with respect to the document being submitted late, and that it exceeded 5 pages. I now realize that the direction of Webb, JA, provided for "any additional documents that are relevant to the issue" and that the Appellant's document did not in fact exceed the number of pages. We await the direction of the Court with respect to the lateness. The Court has been informed of my error. placed on file.
35	2017-07-06	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Respondent's Written Submissions (Doc.34) upon Appellant by facsimile and courier on 05-JUL-2017 filed on 06-JUL-2017
34	2017-07-06	Halifax	Written submissions on behalf of the respondent further to Direction of the Court dated June 8, 2017 filed on 06-JUL-2017
-	2017-07-05	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 05-JUL-2017 re: for direction regarding documents received from the appellant on June 26, 2017
37	2017-06-26	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 26-JUN-2017 confirming service of doc.36 on the respondent by Xpresspost on 26-JUN-2017 filed on 26-JUN-2017
36	2017-06-26	Ottawa	Written representations on behalf of the appellant in response to the Direction of the Court dated June 8, 2017, filed on 26-JUN-2017
-	2017-06-26	Fredericton	Memorandum to file from Catharine M. Wilson dated 26-JUN-2017 On June 26, 2017, the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal submitted a post hearing brief per the direction of Webb, J.A., dated 08-JUN-2017, which is being sent to the FCA for direction as the document was submitted late and exceeds the number of pages. placed on file.
-	2017-06-08	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties by email with respect to the Directions dated June 8, 2017 placed on file on 08-JUN-2017
-	2017-06-08	Ottawa	Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb dated 08-JUN-2017 directing "Please advise the parties that Mr. Amos has the right to submit a brief summary (not to exceed 5 pages) to explain the exact conflict that, in his view, arises in this matter with any of the judges assigned to this appeal and to submit any additional documents that are relevant to this issue. This summary and documents are to be submitted on or before June 23, 2017. [...]" received on 08-JUN-2017 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
-	2017-05-26	Fredericton	Letter from the respondent to Appellant, provided by Appellant (copy of the letter) dated 26-MAY-2017 The Respondent mentions they want communication from Appellant in written letters by mail only, from now on. received on 26-MAY-2017
-	2017-05-24	Fredericton	Request received from MR. Roger Richard for CD audio of the hearing on 24-MAY-2017. Tarriff: $15 paid placed on file on 24-MAY-2017
-	2017-05-24	Fredericton	Request received from Appellant for CD audio of the hearing on 24-MAY-2017 for transcript. Tarriff: $15 paid placed on file on 24-MAY-2017
-	2017-05-24	Fredericton	This matter comes on for hearing on 24-MAY-2017 at Fredericton before The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Near The Honourable Madam Justice Gleason Appearances: David Raymond Amos (self-litigant) 902-800-0369 for the appellant Jan Jensen 902-426-8177 for the respondent Language of Hearing: E Court Usher: Jason Kennedy Duration: on 24-MAY-2017 from 14:03 to 15:58 Courtroom : Courtroom No. 1 - Fredericton Court Registrar Michel Morneault Total duration: 1h55min Before the Court: Cross-appeal Result: reserved Comments: DARS Z005130 was used for the recording of the hearing Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 222 page(s) 411 - 413 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
33	2017-04-24	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal sworn on 24-APR-2017 confirming service of doc.32 on Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal by Xpresspost on 24-APR-2017 filed on 24-APR-2017
32	2017-04-24	Fredericton	Book of Authorities with copy on DVD consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal Filed on 24-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the Court stored in Ottawa One copy placed in Annex
31	2017-04-20	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of doc #30 upon Appellant by courier on 20-APR-2017 filed on 20-APR-2017
30	2017-04-20	Halifax	Book of Authorities consisting of 1 volume(s) on behalf of HMQ (cross-appeal) Filed on 20-APR-2017 3 copy(ies) for the Court stored in Ottawa
-	2017-04-19	Fredericton	Letter from Appellant/Respondent on cross-appeal dated 12-APR-2017 Fax from the Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal to the Appellant/ Respondent on cross-appeal about not reaching an agreement on the contents of a joint book of authorities. received on 19-APR-2017
-	2017-04-13	Ottawa	Covering letter from Respondent dated 12-APR-2017 concerning the enclosed DVD containing the Respondent's Memorandum of Fact and Law placed on file on 13-APR-2017
-	2017-04-12	Fredericton	Communication by email between parties concerning the Joint Book of Authorities, received by the Appellant received on 12-APR-2017
-	2017-04-04	Ottawa	Acknowledgements of receipt of an electronic copy of the hearing date order, e-mailed to: Mr. Jensen (for the Cross-Appellant) and to Mr. Amos (the Cross-Respondent) placed on file on 04-APR-2017
29	2017-03-31	Ottawa	Order (time and place) dated 30-MAR-2017 rendered by S. Bazinet, Judicial Administrator and signed by Judicial Administrator fixing the Cross-Appeal to be heard at Special Sitting in Fredericton on 24-MAY-2017 to begin at 14:00 Filed on 31-MAR-2017 cc's sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 298 page(s) 409 - 409 Transmittal letters placed on file
-	2017-03-22	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 22-MAR-2017 re: setting the Hearing date
28	2017-03-13	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Requisition for Hearing upon Appellant (Respondent by Cross-Appeal) by facsimile and courier on 13-MAR-2017 filed on 13-MAR-2017
27	2017-03-13	Halifax	Requisition for hearing - Appeal from Respondent (Appellant on Cross-Appeal) filed on 13-MAR-2017
-	2017-03-08	Fredericton	Letter from the appellant dated 08-MAR-2017 Email received from Appellant in regards of the Communication to the Court in response to the registry received on 08-MAR-2017
-	2017-03-07	Fredericton	Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 07-MAR-2017 According to the Appellant/Respondent on Cross-appeal after discussion, he received the doc.23 from Appellant on Cross-Appeal on 2-FEB-2017. He said the fax copy sent to him prior was incomplete and received the hard copy on 2-FEB-2017. placed on file.
26	2017-03-07	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal sworn on 07-MAR-2017 confirming service of doc.25 on Respondent/Appellant on Cross-Appeal by Xpresspost on 06-MAR-2017 filed on 07-MAR-2017
25	2017-03-06	Fredericton	Memorandum of fact and law on behalf of Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal filed on 06-MAR-2017 3 judges' copies stored in Ottawa
-	2017-02-02	Halifax	Memorandum to file from Adam Young, Halifax dated 02-FEB-2017 further to Crown Counsel's letter dated 02-FEB-2017 the recorded entry for the R's Memo of F&L(Doc 23) was amended to reflect that it was on behalf of the Respondent(APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL) placed on file.
-	2017-02-02	Halifax	Letter from Jan Jensen, Responsdent on main appeal (Appellant on cross-appeal) dated 02-FEB-2017 providing clarification as to the Respondent's Memo of Fact and law filed on 30-JAN-2017 (Doc 23) received on 02-FEB-2017
24	2017-01-30	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Doc. 23 upon Appellant by telecopier on 30-JAN-2017 filed on 30-JAN-2017
23	2017-01-30	Halifax	Memorandum of fact and law on behalf of the respondent (appellant)on cross-appeal as per order of Webb, JA dated 19-DEC-17 (doc.20) filed on 30-JAN-2017 3 judges' copies stored in Ottawa
-	2016-12-20	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from the Registry of the FCA dated 20-DEC-2016 transmitting a copy of the Order dated December 19, 2016 to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau and the Actions section of the FC. placed on file.
-	2016-12-20	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties (by email) with respect to the Order of the Court dated December 19, 2016 placed on file on 20-DEC-2016
20	2016-12-20	Ottawa	Order dated 19-DEC-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Status Review Result: dismissed "...the Appellant's appeal is dismissed and the Respondent's memorandum of fact and law in respect of the cross-appeal shall be served and filed on or before January 31, 2017." Filed on 20-DEC-2016 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 297 page(s) 381 - 384
-	2016-12-15	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 15-DEC-2016 re: seeking the Court's Direction regarding the filing of the Appellant's Rule 382.3(1) submissions and response to the Status Review.
19	2016-12-01	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of doc #18 upon Appellant by telecopier on 30-NOV-2016 filed on 01-DEC-2016
18	2016-12-01	Halifax	Submissions (Rule 380) on behalf of Respondent filed on 01-DEC-2016
-	2016-12-01	Halifax	Memorandum to file from Elizabeth Caverly, Director, dated 01-DEC-2016 The HFX Registry in receipt of the Respondent's R.380 subs in response to the Appellant's R.380 subs, which were sent to Court for Directions re: filing. The Court has not yet issued Directions regarding their filing. The Respondent indicated they were served with the A's subs on 25-NOV-2016. placed on file.
22	2016-11-21	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 21-NOV-2016 confirming service of doc.21 on the respondent by priority mail on 21-NOV-2016 filed on 21-NOV-2016
21	2016-11-21	Ottawa	Submissions (Rule 380) on behalf of Appellant filed on 21-NOV-2016
-	2016-11-21	Fredericton	Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 21-NOV-2016 Today, I received the Response by the Appellant to the Notice of Status Review with proof of service under the Order issued by Justice Pelletier on 17-OCT-2016. It seems the document is late according to the time limit specified in R.382.3(1). Document sent to Court for directions. placed on file.
-	2016-10-18	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Appellant with respect to document 17. placed on file on 18-OCT-2016
-	2016-10-17	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Respondent with respect to the Notice of Status Review filed 17-OCT-2016. placed on file on 17-OCT-2016
17	2016-10-17	Ottawa	Notice of Status Review by The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier to the parties and their solicitors requiring the Appellant to show cause by written submissions why this appeal should not be dismissed for delay Filed on 17-OCT-2016 cc's sent to parties
-	2016-10-13	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 13-OCT-2016 re: Status Review to be issued
16	2016-08-11	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 11-AUG-2016 confirming service of Doc. 15 on the respondent by mail on 10-AUG-2016 filed on 11-AUG-2016
15	2016-08-11	Fredericton	Appeal Book consisting of 1 volume(s) prepared by the appellant filed on 11-AUG-2016 3 judges' copies stored in Ottawa
-	2016-07-06	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties by way of reply e-mail with respect to Order of the Court (Stratas J.A.) dated 4-JUL-2016 placed on file on 06-JUL-2016
14	2016-07-05	Ottawa	Order dated 04-JUL-2016 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Stratas Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to the motion / document number 7 Result: dismissed Appellant to prepare Appeal within 60 days of present Order Filed on 05-JUL-2016 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 295 page(s) 353 - 354
-	2016-06-29	Fredericton	Memorandum to file from Michel G. Morneault dated 29-JUN-2016 The Appellant advised me today over the phone that he will not file a Reply to the Motion in response to Motion doc.7 placed on file.
-	2016-06-29	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 29-JUN-2016 re: for direction regarding appellant's letter dated May 25, 2016 and motion doc. 7
13	2016-06-20	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Motion Record (Doc. 12) upon Appellant by courier on 20-JUN-2016 filed on 20-JUN-2016
12	2016-06-20	Halifax	Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 7 containing the following original document(s): 11 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Respondent filed on 20-JUN-2016
11	2016-06-20	Halifax	Written submissions contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the respondent in opposition to motion doc. 7 filed on 20-JUN-2016
10	2016-06-10	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 10-JUN-2016 confirming service of doc.9(doc.7,8,id18) on the respondent by priority mail on 10-JUN-2016 filed on 10-JUN-2016
9	2016-06-10	Fredericton	Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 7 8 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Appellant filed on 10-JUN-2016
-	2016-06-10	Fredericton	Draft Order concerning the motion / document number doc.7 received on 10-JUN-2016
8	2016-06-10	Fredericton	Written representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant in support of doc.7 filed on 10-JUN-2016
7	2016-06-10	Fredericton	Notice of motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant to determine content of appeal book in writing filed on 10-JUN-2016 DRAFT ORDER received
6	2016-05-26	Fredericton	Affidavit of David Raymond Amos on behalf of the appellant sworn on 26-MAY-2016 confirming service of doc.5 on the respondent by priority mail on 26-MAY-2016 filed on 26-MAY-2016
5	2016-05-26	Fredericton	Letter from the appellant dated 25-MAY-2016 Letter of proposal of the content of the Appeal book as per Order dated 12-MAY-2016 by Justice Trudel filed on 26-MAY-2016
-	2016-05-13	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties (by email) with respect to the Order of the Court dated May 12, 2016 placed on file on 13-MAY-2016
4	2016-05-13	Ottawa	Order dated 12-MAY-2016 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Trudel Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Appellant dated 27-APR-2016 re: requesting an oral hearing of his Motion Result: dismissed The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Respondent dated 05-MAY-2016 requesting that this Appeal be case managed Result: dismissed "... The appellant shall, in the next 10 days serve and file his proposal as to teh contents of the Appeal Book unless he agrees with the respondent's proposal contained in a letter dated March 3, 2016; if the parties disagree, the appellant shall serve and file a proper Notice of Motion under Rule 369 to request that the Court determine teh contents of the Appeal Book....." Filed on 13-MAY-2016 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 295 page(s) 29 - 31
-	2016-05-11	Ottawa	Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 11-MAY-2016 re: forwarding the Appellant's letter dated April 27, 2016, and the Respondent's letter dated May 5, 2016, for the Court's consideration.
-	2016-05-05	Halifax	Letter from the respondent dated 05-MAY-2016 "....The Respondent requests that this appeal be case managed. ....We anticipate that, without case management, there will be considerable procedural difficulties that will prevent the Appeal from proceeding in the most expeditious and least expensive manner." received on 05-MAY-2016
-	2016-04-27	Fredericton	Letter from the appellant dated 27-APR-2016 Informal request letter R.35 for oral motion. Attached to the letter, a draft notice of motion received on 27-APR-2016
-	2016-03-08	Fredericton	Copy of a fascimile of a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant discussing the content of an Appeal book and the requirements of the Respondent concerning the agreement of the Appeal book dated 03-MAR-2016 received on 08-MAR-2016 by email from Appellant
-	2016-03-01	Fredericton	Copy of a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant dated February 24, 2016 discussing about the appeal and cross-appeal placed on file on 01-MAR-2016 Original placed on Court File No. A-48-16
-	2016-02-18	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from the Registry of the FCA dated 18-FEB-2016 transmitting a copy of the Notice of Cross-Appeal to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau and the Actions section of the FC. placed on file.
3	2016-02-12	Halifax	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jan Jensen confirming service of Notice of Cross-Appeal upon Appellant by courier on 12-FEB-2016 filed on 12-FEB-2016
2	2016-02-12	Halifax	Notice of cross-appeal on behalf of the respondent against a decision of Southcott, J. dated January 25, 2016 filed on 12-FEB-2016
-	2016-02-09	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from the FCA Registry dated 09-FEB-2016 transmitting a copy of doc 1. to Justice Southcott, Prothonotary Morneau, and the actions section of the Federal Court. placed on file.
-	2016-02-04	Fredericton	Letter sent by Registry on 04-FEB-2016 to the respondent R.133 service letter Copy placed on file.
1	2016-02-04	Fredericton	Notice of Appeal and 2 copies filed on 04-FEB-2016 against a decision of Justice Southcott dated January 25th, 2016 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Justice Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes

The last database update occurred on 2018-03-30 16:54

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:08:52 -0400
Subject: ATTN RE A-48-16 Amélie Lavictoire I am demanding a certified copy of 

the edited decision filed December 1, 2017 and another copy byway of email ASAP
To: amelie.lavictoire@cas-satj.gc.ca, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
information@fca-caf.gc.ca, "daniel.gosselin" <daniel.gosselin@cas-satj.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, 

"Norman.Sabourin"<Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, 

 "marc.giroux" <marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>

Registry
For general enquiries and for any question regarding Federal Court of
Appeal practice, procedure and forms, please contact the Registry
office in Ottawa:

613-996-6795
1-800-565-0541
TDD: 613-995-4640



Amélie Lavictoire
A/Executive Director and General Counsel
Federal Court of Appeal and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
(613) 995-5063

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

Information Bulletin
To receive an email notice of new publications by the Federal Courts
Rules Committee, Notices to the Profession and Practice Directives,
send a request to amelie.lavictoire@cas-satj.gc.ca


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:09:25 -0400
Subject: Attn Gib van Ert and Barbara Kincaid RE:My email to you in
November, my calls to your office snce and the strange email I got
just before I was about to submit my application to the Supreme Court
To: barbara.kincaid@scc-csc.ca, Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca, media@scc-csc.ca, 

mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale" <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, 

ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, 

newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, representingyourself@gmail.com, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>, 

"Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "bill.pentney" <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>

HMMM

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-march-25-2018-1.4589621/more-canadians-are-acting-as-their-own-lawyer-because-they-don-t-have-a-choice-1.4589633

More Canadians are acting as their own lawyer because they don't have a choice
CBC Radio • in an hour

A new program at the Windsor law school supports those who
self-represent. (Shutterstock)
Listen20:13

It is a trend most Canadian judges and lawyers do not like: a growing
number of Canadians are representing themselves in court. Some hire a
lawyer then find the legal fees are unaffordable. Others opt to argue
their own case from the beginning.
This is happening not just in small claims courts, where
self-representation is the norm, but in higher courts, where legal
procedures and protocols are challenging for a lay person.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:09:25 -0400
Subject: Attn Gib van Ert and Barbara Kincaid RE:My email to you in November, my calls to
your office snce and the strange email I got just before I was about to submit my application
to the Supreme Court
To: barbara.kincaid@scc-csc.ca, Gib.vanErt@scc-csc.ca,
media@scc-csc.ca, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
 "Jody.Wilson-Raybould" <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca>,
 "hon.ralph.goodale" <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>,
 ethics-ethique <ethics-ethique@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>, newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, representingyourself@gmail.com, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>, "Bill.Morneau" <Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "bill.pentney" <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>

HMMM

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-march-25-2018-1.4589621/more-canadians-are-acting-as-their-own-lawyer-because-they-don-t-have-a-choice-1.4589633

More Canadians are acting as their own lawyer because they don't have a choice
CBC Radio • in an hour

A new program at the Windsor law school supports those who
self-represent. (Shutterstock)
Listen20:13

It is a trend most Canadian judges and lawyers do not like: a growing
number of Canadians are representing themselves in court. Some hire a
lawyer then find the legal fees are unaffordable. Others opt to argue
their own case from the beginning.
This is happening not just in small claims courts, where
self-representation is the norm, but in higher courts, where legal
procedures and protocols are challenging for a lay person.

The National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP) offers help.
It is an innovative program at the University of Windsor and the
brainchild of Julie Macfarlane. She is a Distinguished Professor in
the Faculty of Law and has been spearheading this support network for
almost five years.

Julie Macfarlane of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project
says Canadians are representing themselves in greater numbers because
they simply cannot afford to pay high legal fees. (Mike Kovalski)She
tells The Sunday Edition's Michael Enright that those inside the legal
system have long seen people who represent themselves as "aberrant" or
"those crazy people who think they should be lawyers." Many lawyers
have asked her "why I was bothering to talk to these people who
dragged their plastic bags behind them into court."

The reality, she says, is that people don't have a choice. Canadians
are representing themselves in greater numbers because they cannot
afford to pay high legal fees.

"They are everybody, they are you and they are me," she says. "I don't
think that either of us would probably be able to go on paying at the
rate that it would require to pay a lawyer, at $500-plus an hour for a
piece of protracted litigation."

At least half the people in family courts across the country arrive
without lawyers. In Toronto, the figure is closer to 80 per cent.
Appeals courts are reporting around 30 per cent self-represented
litigants, and in civil courts the figure is between 30 and 40 per
cent.

Legal aid only helps the very, very poorest people. And in Ontario,
the eligibility level is actually set below the level of welfare. -
Julie Macfarlane

"These are people, quite often, with a high level of education.
They're intelligent. They're committed to doing it and figuring it
out, so we do see some fairly extraordinary victories." At the same
time, Macfarlane says, "they are often subject to some of the
litigation tactics that lawyers are much more familiar with." Often
these tactics cause self-represented litigants to lose their cases.

"What is really challenging for people representing themselves isn't
the stuff we teach people at law school, the substantive law,"
Macfarlane adds. "It's the procedure." Judges have discretion in how
rigidly procedures are applied and, most often, this is where
self-represented litigants get tripped up.

This is an area where the NSRLP is helping Canadians. They cannot
offer legal advice or act as counsel, but their coaches can help them
through the process by guiding people through court procedures and
being "someone who's in their corner." They also keep a national
inventory of lawyers who charge affordable fees, and produce resources
to help Canadians navigate the court system, such as how to access
written court transcripts.

Macfarlane says we need to make sure judges across the country are
equipped to support those representing themselves. (Shutterstock )

Macfarlane acknowledges some judges are doing an outstanding job in
helping people who represent themselves in court, by taking the time
to explain procedure and making sure someone isn't disadvantaged, "but
it's not something that is consistent across the country," Macfarlane
says. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged this in a recent
ruling, in which it said courts may not treat a self-represented
litigant in the same way in which they treat a lawyer.

"Judges need to come to the bench now with a different sensibility
about what their job is," Macfarlane says. "We really need to take
seriously how we re-equip the judiciary."

The NSRLP is encouraging the "unbundling" of legal services, where
instead of working on a retainer and controlling an entire file,
lawyers would contract to take on only particular tasks, such as legal
coaching, reviewing an application form for divorce or preparing for a
case management conference.

Judges need to come to the bench now with a different sensibility
about what their job is.- Julie Macfarlane



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:51:09 -0400
Subject: Re: PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS E-MAIL - Federal Court of
Appeal Decision, File A-48-16 // DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
To: CAS-SATJ DECISIONS <cas-satj-decisions@cas-satj.gc.ca>,
"jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

I got it However as you no doubt know I have some very serious
questions about it

David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Jensen, Jan" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 20:57:25 +0000
Subject: RE: PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS E-MAIL - Federal Court of
Appeal Decision, File A-48-16 // DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
To: CAS-SATJ DECISIONS <cas-satj-decisions@cas-satj.gc.ca>,
"david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,
"motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

I have received this email.
Regards

Jan Jensen

Counsel
Atlantic Regional Office
Suite 1400, Duke Tower
5251 Duke Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1P3
National Litigation Sector
Department of Justice Canada
Government of Canada

jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca<mailto:jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>
tel:  (902) 426-8177
fax:  (902) 426-2329


This communication contains information that may be confidential,
exempt from disclosure, subject to litigation privilege or protected
by the privilege that exists between lawyers or notaries and their
clients.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read,
rely on, retain, or distribute it.  Please delete or otherwise destroy
this communication and all copies of it immediately, and contact the
sender at (902) 426-8177 or by email at
jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca<mailto:xxxx@justice.gc.ca>


Jan Jensen

Avocat
Bureau régional de l'Atlantique
pièce 1400, tour Duke
5251 rue Duke
Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse)  B3J 1P3
Secteur national du contentieux
Ministère de la Justice Canada
Gouvernement du Canada

jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca<mailto:xxxx@justice.gc.ca>
tél : (902) 426-8177
téléc : (902) 426-2329


Ce message contient des renseignements qui pourraient être
confidentiels, soustraits à la communication, ou protégés par le
privilège relatif au litige ou par le secret professionnel liant
l'avocat ou le notaire à son client.  S'il ne vous est pas destiné,
vous êtes priés  de ne pas le lire, l'utiliser, le conserver ou le
diffuser.  Veuillez sans tarder le supprimer et en détruire toute
copie, et communiquer avec l'expéditeur au (902) 426-8177 ou par
courriel à jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca<mailto:xxxx@justice.gc.ca>



---------- Original message ----------
From: CAS-SATJ DECISIONS <cas-satj-decisions@cas-satj.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:37:32 +0000
Subject: PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS E-MAIL - Federal Court of Appeal
Decision, File A-48-16 // DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
To: "david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,
"motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
"jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>

    [cid:image001.png@01D2FA4E.FEBCB9E0]
Federal Court of Appeal

Dear Sir/Madam:
Please find attached a copy of the corrections, rendered by the Court
( Webb, Near, and Gleason J.J.A )

If you require a copy of the above-noted correction, please advise and
one will be forwarded to you by regular mail.

PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS E-MAIL AND ATTACHED DOCUMENT(S), BY
REPLY E-MAIL, WITHIN TWO (2) DAYS.


Anything sent to this e-mail address, other than confirmation of
receipt of a decision, will not be considered as having been received
by the Registry.
Regards,

Megan Cruickshank
Student

Pursuant to section 20 of the Official Languages Act all final
decisions, orders and judgments, including any reasons given
therefore, issued by the Court are issued in both official languages.
In the event that such documents are issued in the first instance in
only one of the official languages, a copy of the version in the other
official language will be forwarded on request when it is available.

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

Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
The Supreme Court

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


Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database

Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date

2017-10-30
Neutral citation

2017 FCA 213
File numbers

A-48-16
Date: 20171030

Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:

WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


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

THE COURT



Date: 20171030

Docket: A-48-16
Citation: 2017 FCA 213
CORAM:

WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.


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

I.                    Introduction

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

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


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


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


II.                 Preliminary Matter

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

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


5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
Appeal.
[…]

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

5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.


[7]               However, these subsections only provide that the
judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
[8]               Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that:
3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.

3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
matière civile et pénale.
4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
— Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.

4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
compétence en matière civile et pénale.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


III.               Issue

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

IV.              Analysis

A.                 Standard of Review

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

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

A-48-16



STYLE OF CAUSE:

DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN



PLACE OF HEARING:

Fredericton,
New Brunswick

DATE OF HEARING:

May 24, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.

DATED:

October 30, 2017





APPEARANCES:
David Raymond Amos


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

Jan Jensen


For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL

---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:28:41 +0000
Subject: RE: Yo Norman Sabourin why is it that nothing you people do
surprises me anymore?
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: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM
Subject: Yo Norman Sabourin why is it that nothing you people do
surprises me anymore?   Inbox
To: "Norman.Sabourin" <Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, "marc.giroux"
<marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>, Philippe.Joly@cie.parl.gc.ca,
"mary.dawson" <mary.dawson@cie.parl.gc.ca>,
Blair.Armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca, geoff.regan@parl.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, mcu
<mcu@justice.gc.ca>, Sean.Kavanagh@cbc.ca, gopublic <gopublic@cbc.ca>
Bcc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, "Bill.Morneau"
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, rrichard <rrichard@nb.aibn.com>, Gerald
Bourque <kisspartyofnb@gmail.com>, barbara.kincaid@scc-csc.ca

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/att-norman-sabourin-please-review-cover.html

Tuesday, 28 November 2017
YO Norman Sabourin Please review the cover letter that came with many
documents I sent you and explain why you have never responded to me

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:18:20 +0000
Subject: RE: ATT Norman Sabourin Please review the cover letter that
came with many documents I sent you and explain why you have never
responded to me
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.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:16:48 -0400
Subject: ATT Norman Sabourin Please review the cover letter that came
with many documents I sent you and explain why you have never
responded to me
To: "Norman.Sabourin" <Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, "marc.giroux"
<marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>

Gib van Ert
Executive Legal Officer:
Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court Bldg.
301 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1
Phone: 613-996-9296
Fax: 613-952-3092

---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:14:35 +000
Subject: RE: Here ya go folks please enjoy the hearing today in
Federal Court and the notes I read from as I argued the Queen's sneaky
little minions who think they are above the law and the rest of us as well
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: NATALIA OLIVEIRA JOHNSTON natalia.johnston@cbc.ca
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 17:13:10 -0700
Subject: Out of office Re: Here ya go folks please enjoy the hearing
today in Federal Court and the notes I read from as I argued the
Queen's sneaky little minions who think they are above the law and the
rest of us as well
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Please note that I'm on annual leave and will return on May 29.

If your matter is urgent, please contact the reception line at 416-205-3216.

--
*Natalia Johnston*
Legal Assistant
to Dustin Milligan, Katarina Germani and Azim Remani

Tel. (416) 205-2306

May 24th

https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown

April 3rd

https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:10:57 -0400
Subject: Yo Norman Sabourin do you think the Canadian Judicial Council
or the Supreme Court of Canada will ever read the documents I sent you
byway of registered US Mail in August off 2005?
To: maritime_malaise <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>, david
<david@lutz.nb.ca>, "matthew.smith" <matthew.smith@lutz.nb.ca>,
"maria.powell" <maria.powell@lutz.nb.ca>, "michael.bray"
<michael.bray@fosterandcompany.com>, "serge.rousselle"
<serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "david.eidt" <david.eidt@gnb.ca>,
"kirk.macdonald" <kirk.macdonald@gnb.ca>, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, mrichard
<mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca>, "hugh.flemming"
<hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "george.oram" <george.oram@gnb.ca>, mcu
<mcu@justice.gc.ca>, Craig Munroe <cmunroe@glgmlaw.com>, pm
<pm@pm.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac02186 <motomaniac02186@yahoo.com>, "Norman.Sabourin"
<Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, "marc.giroux"
<marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>

Better yet How about the documents hereto attached?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:53:02 +0000
Subject: RE: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian
Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after
his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.  Please be
assured  that your email will be reviewed.

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du
Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre  courriel sera examiné.

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2016/09/re-justice-camp-malicious-nonsense.html


July 31st, 2005

Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
C/o Norman Sabourin General Counsel and
Andrew Grant and Renée Maria Tremblay
Canadian Judicial Council
150 Metcalfe Street,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8

Shirley Heafey Chair of Commission
for Public Complaints against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423 Station "D"
Ottawa, ON K1P 6L4

                                 RE: Rampant Public Corruption

 Hey,

      Pursuant to my recent phone calls to Norman Sabourin and various
underlings of Shirley Heafey within the Commission for Public
Complaints against the RCMP over the years plus my many faxes and
emails please find enclosed exactly the same material received by
every Attorney General in Canada over the past year. The CD which is a
copy of a police surveillance wiretap tape # 139 is served upon you as
officers of the court in order that it may be properly investigated.
As you can see I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to the latest
Attorney General Mr. Wally Opal in BC. Perhaps he should take a little
trip to Surrey and ask your office some hard questions. Perhaps the
ghost of my fellow Independent politician, Chuck Cadman may wish to
answer few questions now as well. Hard telling not knowing.

      I will not bother you with the details of what I am sending to
you byway of the certified US Mail because I will be serving identical
material to many other Canadian Authorities in hand and tell them I
gave this stuff to you first and enclose a copy of this letter. All
that is important to me right now is that I secure proof that this
mail was sent before I make my way back home to the Maritimes. However
I will say I am also enclosing a great deal more material than what
Allan Rock had received in the UN. Some of it is in fact the same
material the two maritime lawyers, Rob Moore and Franky Boy McKenna in
particular received, while I was up home running for Parliament last
year. Things have changed greatly in the past year so I have also
included a few recent items to spice thing up for you. I am tired of
trying to convince people employed in law enforcement to uphold the
law. So all I will say for now is deal will your own conscience and be
careful how you respond to this letter. If you do not respond. Rest
assured I will do my best to sue you some day. Ignorance is no excuse
to the law or me.

Veritas Vincit
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave
Milton, MA. 02186

Label/Receipt Number: ED71 7170 484U S
Detailed Results:


Delivered Abroad, August 11, 2005, 6:49 am, CANADA
Out of Foreign Customs, August 08, 2005, 2:37 pm, CANADA
Into Foreign Customs, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
Arrived Abroad, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
International Dispatch, August 03, 2005, 8:32 am, KENNEDY AMC
Enroute, August 03, 2005, 8:30 am, JAMAICA, NY 11499
Acceptance, August 02, 2005, 10:40 am, QUINCY, MA 02169



http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/03/yo-bobby-paulson-i-wonder-if-you-or.html

---------- Original message ----------
From: Philippe.Joly@cie.parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:53:18 +0000
Subject: Your December 15, 2016 email
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Good Day Mr. Amos,

Please find attached a self-explanatory letter.

Regards,

Philippe Joly
Enquêteur principal / Senior investigator
Commissariat aux conflits d'intérêts et à l'éthique / Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Parlement du Canada / Parliament of Canada
66 rue Slater, 22e étage, Ottawa (Ontario)  K1A 0A6
Téléphone : 613-996-6012   Télécopieur / Fax : 613-995-7308
Courriel / Email :
philippe.joly@cie.parl.gc.ca


________________________________
This communication, and any files or attachments transmitted with it,
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which or
to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender by return email, telephone or fax
immediately, and delete this communication and destroy all copies. We
thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Cette communication, ainsi que tout fichier ou toute pièce qui y est
joint, est à l'intention du destinataire seulement. Cette
communication peut contenir des renseignements protégés, confidentiels
et soustraits à la divulgation en vertu de la loi applicable. Si vous
avez reçu ce message par erreur, vous êtes prié d'en aviser
immédiatement l'expéditeur par courriel, téléphone ou télécopieur, et
d'effacer la communication et d'éliminer toute copie. Nous vous
remercions de votre collaboration.



---------- Original message ----------
From: "Armitage, Blair" <Blair.Armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:31:24 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My concerns about the severe lack of ethics within the
Senate and elsewhere I am calling our "Ethics Watchdogs" again right
now
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Sir,

I am in receipt of your email.

Is there anything you are asking me to do with it in my official
capacity? The attached files do not appear to address issues for which
I have any responsibility.

Regards,

Blair Armitage
Principal Clerk /Greffier Principal
Committees Directorate/Direction des comités
Senate of Canada/Sénat du Canada
Blair.Armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:17:44 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE My concerns about the severe lack of ethics within
the Senate and elsewhere I am calling our "Ethics Watchdogs" again
right now
To: don.meredith@sen.parl.gc.ca, blair.armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Paul.Tasker@cbc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:59:11 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE My concerns about the severe lack of ethics within
the Senate and elsewhere I am calling our "Ethics Watchdogs" again
right now
To: "peter.harder" <peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:00:06 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE My concerns about the severe lack of ethics within
the Senate and elsewhere I am calling our "Ethics Watchdogs" again
right now
To: blair.armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca, Paul.Tasker@cbc.ca,
peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-office-budget-800-thousand-1.3535847

Trudeau's Senate leader asks for $800K office budget
Prime minister to name 20 more senators by the fall, Peter Harder
tells Senate committee By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Apr 14,
2016 3:39 PM ET|


 Peter Harder   -  Independent

Province: Ontario
Senatorial Designation: Ottawa
Appointed on the advice of:
Justin Trudeau (Lib.)
Telephone: 613-995-0222  or 1-800-267-7362
Fax: 613-995-0207
Email: peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca


The Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the
Opposition in the Senate are members ex officio in addition to the
number of appointed members, of the Committee of Selection and all
select committees of the Senate.

http://www.goc411.ca/en/128818/Blair-Armitage

Blair Armitage
Blair Armitage works as Principal Clerk for Senate of Canada.
Blair can be reached at 613-996-5588

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CIEC-CCIE@parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:47:55 +0000
Subject: Message Receipt from CIEC / Accusé de réception du CCIE
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Un message français suit.

This reply has been automatically generated to acknowledge successful
receipt of your email.

The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
administers the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest
Code for Members of the House of Commons. These two regimes seek to
prevent conflicts between the public duties of elected and appointed
officials and private interests.

We will respond as appropriate within three business days. Please note
that the Office does not respond to messages directed to another
person or organization, to form letters or to correspondence
containing offensive or abusive language.

Thank you for your inquiry.

_________________________

Cette réponse vous est envoyée automatiquement pour accuser réception
de votre courriel.

Le Commissariat aux conflits d’intérêts et à l’éthique applique la Loi
sur les conflits d’intérêts et le Code régissant les conflits
d’intérêts des députés. Ces deux régimes visent à prévenir les
conflits entre les fonctions publiques des représentants nommés et
élus et des intérêts personnels.

Nous vous répondrons dans les trois jours ouvrables, le cas échéant.
Veuillez noter que le Commissariat ne répond pas aux messages adressés
à une autre personne ou un autre organisme, aux lettres types ou à la
correspondance contenant des propos grossiers ou injurieux.

Nous vous remercions de votre message.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jocelyne.Brisebois@cie.parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:47:55 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court file no T-1557-15 Yo mary
dawson and Mikey Ferguson (formerly of New Brunswick) Meththe plot
just thickened bigtime once I discovered your "journalist" buddy
Martin Patriquin of Maclean's Magazine is a player N'esy Pas?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com


Please note that the Office is closed until Tuesday, March 29, 2016. Thank you.

                                                          ***********

Veuillez noter que le Commissariat est ferm? jusqu'? mardi le 29 mars
2016.  Merci.

________________________________
This communication, and any files or attachments transmitted with it,
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which or
to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender by return email, telephone or fax
immediately, and delete this communication and destroy all copies. We
thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Cette communication, ainsi que tout fichier ou toute pi?ce qui y est
joint, est ? l'intention du destinataire seulement. Cette
communication peut contenir des renseignements prot?g?s, confidentiels
et soustraits ? la divulgation en vertu de la loi applicable. Si vous
avez re?u ce message par erreur, vous ?tes pri? d'en aviser
imm?diatement l'exp?diteur par courriel, t?l?phone ou t?l?copieur, et
d'effacer la communication et d'?liminer toute copie. Nous vous
remercions de votre collaboration.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/toews-justice-conflict-of-interest-judge-1.4426451

Judicial council won't pursue inquiry into conflict of interest
allegation against Vic Toews
'No further action is required,' Canadian Judicial Council says after review
By Sean Kavanagh, CBC News Posted: Nov 30, 2017 11:16 AM CT


The Canadian Judicial Council has completed its review of the conduct
of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice Vic Toews and says it won't
be investigating complaints against him further.

The council said Thursday that two complaints were reviewed by Justice
Christopher Hinkson, chief justice of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, who found nothing that would warrant Toews' removal.

"Chief Justice Hinkson notes that the [federal ethics] commissioner
did not make any findings that put into question the integrity, good
faith or credibility of Justice Toews," the council said in a media
release.

"Upon a full review of all the relevant information, Chief Justice
Hinkson found an absence of any information that would suggest an
attempt to mislead or reveal conduct incompatible with the duties of
judicial office."

The review was launched following a complaint received in relation to
a report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

In April, ​Canada's ethics commissioner found the former Conservative
cabinet minister breached conflict of interest rules by doing
consulting work for two Manitoba First Nations after he left office.

Mary Dawson's report last spring said Toews advised a First Nations
group he had once fought in court when he was Treasury Board president
in the former federal Conservative government.

Dawson's report said Toews "acted for or on behalf of a party that was
seeking relief against a decision in which he had been involved as a
minister of the Crown."

The report said Toews also broke the rules requiring a two-year
cooling off period for providing consultancy services to the Norway
House Cree Nation through a company owned by his wife.​

    Former cabinet minister-turned-Manitoba judge broke conflict of
interest rules, commissioner finds
    Vic Toews met with Peguis lawyer about Kapyong settlement: Court documents

Toews challenged the decision of the commissioner in court, but
dropped the case recently.

    Former cabinet minister Vic Toews challenges conflict ruling in
Federal Court
    Manitoba Judge Vic Toews drops court challenge of ethics commissioner ruling

National advocacy organization Democracy Watch filed a complaint
against Toews with the Canadian Judicial Council after his alleged
conflict interest was raised.

"The actions that were under scrutiny by the commissioner were not
ones that raised issues for the Canadian Judicial Council," Norman
Sabourin of the CJC said Thursday. "I am of the view that there was a
thorough review because it's an issue that was in the public domain
and it deserved a thorough review, which is what the council did."

Toews' lawyer said Thursday he is happy the matter is finished.

"I thought the [ethics] commissioner's process was badly, badly flawed
and unfair, and so I'm happy that everything's over," Robert Tapper
said.

With files from The Canadian Press and Meagan Ketcheson