David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
& my lawsuit ASAP Statement 25 of this decision should interest all Canadians N'esy Pas @JustinTrudeau ?
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
[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.
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
Methinks the same sort of thing could be said of Neil Macdonald and his opinions N'esy Pas?
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/08/methinks-neil-macdonald-just-did-sneaky.html
Methinks the same sort of thing could be said of Neil Macdonald and his opinions N'esy Pas?
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/08/methinks-neil-macdonald-just-did-sneaky.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/maxime-bernier-tweets-1.4792134
Maxime Bernier is challenging orthodoxy. He deserves a civil reply: Neil Macdonald
A common identity can be unifying, even if it rests on foundational myths, as most patriotism does
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Jason Martin
The problem with political
correctness is it leaves no room for debate or opinion. It attempts to
marginalize those who do not accept the status quo.
Content disabled.
David Amos
@Jason Martin "To state the
obvious, Conservative MP Maxime Bernier's attempts to irrupt into the
liberal orthodoxy of identity politics is a bit rich."
Methinks the same sot f thing could be said of Neil Macdonald and his opinions N'esy Pas?
Methinks the same sot f thing could be said of Neil Macdonald and his opinions N'esy Pas?
David Amos
@David Amos "Same sort of thing"
Shawn James
@David Amos You really have to stop saying "N'esy Pas".
David Amos
@Shawn James Methinks you are talking to a ghost N'esy Pas?
Bob Charron
@Jason Martin
Why would the RCMP feel it necessary to use strong-arm tactics on an elderly woman whose only crime was asking her PM an uncomfortable question?
Why isn't the press all over this?
Why aren't Canadians more troubled by this violation of her civil rights?
Why would the RCMP feel it necessary to use strong-arm tactics on an elderly woman whose only crime was asking her PM an uncomfortable question?
Why isn't the press all over this?
Why aren't Canadians more troubled by this violation of her civil rights?
Content disabled.
David Amos
David Amos
@Bob Charron Methinks folks
should read my lawsuit against the Crown sometime and ask Maxime Bernier
and his old pals Stockwell Day and Peter MacKay about the RCMP false
arrest of yours truly in 2008 N'esy Pas?
Maxime Bernier is challenging orthodoxy. He deserves a civil reply: Neil Macdonald
A common identity can be unifying, even if it rests on foundational myths, as most patriotism does
To state the obvious, Conservative MP Maxime Bernier's attempts to irrupt into the liberal orthodoxy of identity politics is a bit rich.
Bernier is, after all, an MP from Quebec, where most people regard their language and culture as something ennobling and worthy of special status and protection, which is the original and biggest identity politics issue Canada has faced. It in fact nearly broke up the country.
That said, Bernier's contention – that identity politics promotes an endless splintering of the polity into ever-narrower shards of cohorts, all of whom believe their ethnicity or religious beliefs or sexuality merit special consideration – is worth discussing. Dismissing Bernier as a nativist, or white nationalist, or simply racist is just more of the reflexive, ad hominem groupthink that's currently so fashionable.
5/ Trudeau’s extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges.
In any case, Bernier's is hardly a new argument. Todd Gitlin, a respected American public intellectual on the political left, made more or less the same case in the early '90s, complaining that his treasured Rainbow Coalition of the '60s and '70s had shattered, as its constituent groups broke away, intent on separating themselves and promoting their concerns above others. Gitlin argued that power lies in unity and collective will, and that the loss of a collective voice is a path to irrelevance. In retrospect, he had a point.
Maïr Verthuy, a prominent Quebec feminist and first principal of the Simone de Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University, once told me she despaired, watching young feminists subdivide into smaller, insular, competing factions along lines of race and sexuality, which she believed detracted from pursuing the broader struggle for women's equality. Verthuy wanted unity. Effectively, she was saying that unity, rather than diversity, is strength.
Diversity as an end
Our current prime minister famously takes another view. Diversity, to him, is a supreme value; an end in itself.
On the day he swore in his first cabinet, three years ago, he stood before the cameras and told Canadians that the "diversity that makes this country so strong is a diversity of views that will carry us forward." He's been repeating that sort of vacuous tautology ever since. It's his favourite theme.
And, clearly, some of the diversity-and-inclusion agenda is overdue. Those belonging to minority groups have been marginalized, and treated terribly, and that requires redress.
But in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mouth, diversity also has obvious subtexts: that whites, especially white males, advance by dint of racial privilege, that merit is utterly relative and that anyone who questions diversity's ever-expanding demands for accommodation — for neologistic pronouns and euphemisms, for tight controls on speech and for recognition that ethnicity or sexuality perforce bestows some sort of unique merit — must be a kind of angry white revanchist, sulking about the disappearance of unmerited privilege, desiring above all a return to the days when minorities and women and non-heterosexuals knew their place.
And while that thinking surely exists – look no further than Trump Nation – Trudeau's full embrace of identity politics probably annoys many Canadians of good will.
I don't know if the woman at the political rally in Quebec on Thursday — the one who shouted questions at him about the costs of accepting "illegal immigrants" — is a person of good will, but she surely did not deserve the brusque bullying treatment she received from the prime minister. She loudly criticized Trudeau at the rally, as is her right, for what she considers his indulgent attitude toward the spike in undocumented people fleeing President Donald Trump's America by simply walking across the border into Canada, overwhelming social service providers in Quebec and Ontario.
A lot of Canadians, no doubt, have concerns about the issue that woman raised, whatever her motivation. A reasonable case can be made that Canada's immigration policies are welcoming and generous, far more so than America's, and should not be ignored. Rather than engage with her, though, Trudeau condescendingly dismissed her as a racist.
It is the Liberal way. If you don't agree with us, we'll smile and explain our policies more slowly, and if after that you still disagree, well, you're a climate change denier, or a racist, or an ideologue not worth the effort of engagement.
- Bernier's diatribe against 'extreme multiculturalism' boosts Liberal fundraising
- ANALYSIS | Maxime Bernier has a base. Is it big enough to protect him?
But it's at least worth having a discussion about his notion that by retreating into ever smaller tribes and inward-facing cohorts, Canada is on its way to standing collectively for nothing at all.
Personally, I'm deeply suspicious of phrases like "common values," or even "patriotism." I dislike nationalism of any sort, and I regard Canada as a convenient modus vivendi in which I am content to participate. I distrust loud declamations about how we live in the best country in the world, etc.
But a common identity can be unifying, even if it rests on foundational myths, as most patriotism does. And unity works.
Say what you like about the Americans, but they've done a remarkable job of creating common identity, despite their insane political polarization. Within one generation, or even earlier, immigrants tend to identify first and foremost as Americans, and only secondarily as whatever their ancestry might be. No other nation has accomplished that, and it is undeniably useful; it creates impermeable unity in crisis.
If that is what Bernier wants for Canada, well, fine, let's talk about that.
He is making his case politely and without insult to any minority group. Shouting him out of the public square only guarantees that the herd of independent thinkers will continue to dispense moral dictation, unbothered.
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
About the Author
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/the-prime-of-brian-mulroney/article998044/
the prime of Brian Mulroney
Konrad Yakabuski
Palm
Beach, Fla., is a town where a resident's net worth is summed up in the
capsule description that invariably is tacked onto their name in the
local society column. As in, pharmaceutical heir Laddie Merck,
Cuban-American sugar king Pepe Fanjul, oil billionaire David Koch, or
Kate Ford, the widow of Henry Ford II.
Former
Canadian prime minister and globetrotting rainmaker Brian Mulroney - a
Palm Beach homeowner since 1997 - fits in marvellously here.
So
it was, on a Friday evening in March, that a select group of the island
community's seasonal and permanent inhabitants - among them Paul
Desmarais, Conrad Black, Koch, Fanjul and Ford - descended on the ritzy
Club Colette on Peruvian Avenue. The occasion that brought them to the
private dinner club (which was once owned by Aldo Gucci, a detail too
delicious to ignore for anyone familiar with Mulroney's shoe fixation)
was the boy from Baie Comeau's 65th birthday party.
They
were joined by an illustrious list of out-of-towners. George Bush Sr.
flew over from Houston. Gustavo Cisneros, Venezuela's richest man, came
up from Caracas. Dallas-based leveraged buyout wizard Tom Hicks popped
over from his retreat in the Caribbean. So did Irish media baron Tony
O'Reilly, who flew in on his Gulfstream III. Pierre Karl Péladeau came
down from Montreal, Gerry Schwartz and Galen Weston from Toronto.
Joan
Rivers, a family friend through shared charitable causes, kept everyone
amused. "Mila is so attractive," the comedienne, in five-inch
rhinestone heels, cracked, "that the first time I met her, I thought she
was the second wife." Mila Mulroney, in a silver lamé Dolce &
Gabbana creation, blushed.
If Mulroney's 65th birthday was the official reason for the celebration, there were other excuses to party.
The
year had been a very good one for Mulroney, his best since leaving
office in 1993. The legacy he so longed for was finally taking shape. It
began with an April 17, 2003, letter from RCMP Commissioner Giuliano
Zaccardelli informing Mulroney that he had been fully exonerated in the
Airbus affair. It continued in June when he was named the second-best
prime minister of the past 50 years by an elite panel of 28 academics
(Lester Pearson was first). Then, in February, journalist Stevie Cameron
was exposed as an RCMP informant in the Airbus case. Cameron, who had
spent much of her career trying to tear down Mulroney's, ended up
seriously compromising her own. Mulroney enjoyed the irony in that.
So
did his friends. Those assembled at the party - the main event during a
weekend of soirées, brunches and cocktails that Cisneros would label "a
whole Brian Mulroney festival" - had never doubted his innocence nor
underestimated his political achievements. To them, Mulroney was an
icon. They'd seen him spend the previous decade building a hugely
successful international business career, amassing much wealth and even
greater influence than he held as prime minister.
Bush,
Desmarais, Cisneros, Hicks, O'Reilly, Péladeau and others - people with
names like Rockefeller, Kissinger, Munk and Forbes - had been eager
helpmates in Mulroney's ascent to the top of the global business
establishment. As Mulroney expanded and consolidated his worldwide
network - flitting from his Montreal base at the law firm of Ogilvy
Renault to Beijing, Brussels, Cape Town, Moscow, Dublin, Dallas, Paris,
London, New York, Washington and Caracas - he never forgot his friends.
For them, he opened doors. To them, he offered his counsel. With him,
they got richer.
"I'm an unabashed
Mulroney fan," says Bush, the former U.S. president and father of the
Oval Office's current occupant. "If he said, 'This is something you
oughta do,' that would get more than a cursory consideration from me."
Adds Cisneros, who controls one of the world's biggest private
conglomerates, with 72 companies in more than 80 countries: "Brian
Mulroney is a walking encyclopedia. He knows all the issues better than
anybody else and he can give you better advice than anyone else. He also
has a wealth of contacts. If you need to talk to the president of
Argentina or some other country, Brian knows them."
The
late-afternoon light streams into Brian Mulroney's office on the 12th
floor of a McGill College Avenue office tower. On his desk is a thick
stack of paper that constitutes the memoirs he has written in longhand,
about to be sent to his publisher, McClelland & Stewart; hanging
behind the imposing bureau, a portrait of Mila and the kids. At the
other end of the office is a large collection of framed photographs.
There's Brian and the Bushes. Brian and Bill Clinton. Brian and Francois
Mitterrand. Brian and Ronald Reagan. More Bushes. Brian and the Pope.
Brian and Ted Kennedy. Another Bush.
Wearing
a classic double-breasted blue pinstripe suit, the former prime
minister looks rested and, on the eve of becoming a senior citizen,
healthier than he has in years. In contrast to the dour and haggard man
with the tired voice that Canadians remember from his final years in
office, this Brian Mulroney is a chipper 65. Which is astonishing,
considering the schedule he keeps. He has shown no inclination to slow
down, despite a scare in 2002 when doctors detected an irregular
heartbeat. Mulroney, who taps a pouch of Equal into his coffee, insists
he is in fine shape and exercises regularly.
"The
truth of the matter is that I work as hard today, if not harder, than I
did when I was 35," he says. "But I'm having a great time doing it. I
love it."
In the five weeks leading
up to this interview, Mulroney has been in more airports than many
people see in a lifetime. There was a jaunt with Desmarais to the White
House for meetings with President George W. Bush and National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice. A trip to South Africa for a meeting of the
global advisory board of Independent News and Media Group - the Tony
O'Reilly-controlled communications giant that owns some 200 newspapers -
and a courtesy call on an old friend, Nelson Mandela. New York was
next. There, he attended board meetings at Trizec Properties Inc., Peter
Munk's U.S. real estate company, and Cendant Corp., the massive
franchiser that owns such name brands as Century 21 and Coldwell Banker
in real estate, Avis and Budget in car rentals, and Days Inn and Ramada
in hotels. A couple of days later, Mulroney was in Toronto for a meeting
of the Barrick Gold Corp. board. Then to Palm Beach to speak at an
American Ireland Fund dinner with O'Reilly, who is chairman of the
international Ireland Funds. After that, back to New York for a board
meeting at America Online Latin America Inc., a Cisneros-controlled
joint venture with Time Warner Inc.
To
Montreal, then, for a day of meetings as co-chair of a committee struck
by Quebec Premier Jean Charest to study Montreal's plan for two new
superhospitals. The next couple of days at home were devoted to work at
Quebecor Inc., where Mulroney is on the board of both the parent holding
company and subsidiary Quebecor Media. Then a day in New York as
chairman of printing behemoth Quebecor World Inc. Mulroney ended the
month as the star attraction brought in by Steve Forbes - Mulroney is
the chairman of Forbes Global, the international edition of Forbes - to
entertain high-powered CEOs on the Forbes yacht, the Highlander, off the
Florida coast.
Mulroney sits on 16
corporate boards or international advisory boards. He almost added
another to the long list last fall, when he emerged as a key figure in
New York hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management's bid to become
struggling Air Canada's saviour. Mulroney, the fund's senior legal
adviser, would have become the airline's chairman had the Cerberus offer
been accepted. (Air Canada instead opted for the bid by Hong
Kong-Canadian businessman Victor Li. But by early April, Li had all but
pulled out, paving the way for a revival of the Cerberus offer.)
Mulroney was recruited for the Cerberus gig by Dan Quayle, George Bush
Sr.'s vice-president, who heads the hedge fund's international advisory
board.
Such
boards - which began popping up in the mid-1990s and are now a
must-have for a global company - are a networker's dream. Mulroney sits
on IABs with, among others, former U.S. secretaries of state Henry
Kissinger and George Shultz, philanthropist David Rockefeller and
Clinton insider Vernon Jordan. "You meet them socially, you become
friendly," Mulroney explains. "When they're looking for lawyers in
Canada, they'll call me. And vice versa. Or the CEO of one of the
companies I'm involved with will call me and say, 'We're looking at
spinning off a division in Europe.
Do you think Hicks Muse [the
Dallas-based leveraged buyout firm where Mulroney is a senior
counsellor]would be interested?' " Mulroney's international advisory
seats include J.P. Morgan Chase, the second-largest U.S. bank;
Desmarais's Power Corp. of Canada; Frank Stronach's Magna International
Inc.; General Enterprise Management Services Ltd., a Hong Kong-based
investment fund run by former Li Ka-shing lieutenant Simon Murray; and
China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), a huge
state-owned conglomerate that specializes in joint ventures with
non-Chinese partners. What do they expect from the former prime
minister? "Geo-strategic evaluations," he offers. Most of his advice is
highly confidential. Mulroney would never say if, for example, he has
told CITIC whether he thinks George W. is toast in November. But he
probably has.
His board work,
Mulroney insists, is still secondary to his activities as a senior
partner at Ogilvy Renault. "This is the cornerstone of my existence," he
says of the firm he rejoined almost immediately after leaving office in
1993. "The promotion of the interests of Ogilvy Renault and its clients
is my principal preoccupation."
Mulroney's
name alone on the letterhead draws business to the firm. But he doesn't
leave it at that.
"He's always available to partners who like to
introduce him to clients or CEOs or give talks to small groups," says
Ogilvy Renault managing partner Raymond Crevier. "It's amazing the
attraction he has. I've seen him talking to clients over dinner and they
just stop everything and listen. He's got this Irish charm. In the past
15 years, [hiring Mulroney]is the best thing we've done as a firm."
Mulroney's
job at Ogilvy Renault carries no salary. Nor does he take credit for
the business he generates for the firm. When he snags a client, he
immediately refers the catch to another partner. And when Mulroney
chalks up billable hours on behalf of the firm, he credits it to the
account of an associate. Mulroney's only remuneration for his activities
at Ogilvy Renault comes from his share of the profits he derives as a
partner.
Brian Mulroney was
introduced to the realities of global business long before most of us.
He was born in a town that owed its very existence to trade and
border-crossing capital. The North Shore town of Baie Comeau was built a
few years before Mulroney's birth in 1939 by Colonel Robert McCormick,
to supply newsprint for his Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News.
Mulroney's father, Ben, an electrician, went to work for McCormick's
Quebec North Shore Paper Co., and the family settled on the English side
of town, which was normally reserved for managers. Most residents of
Baie Comeau stuck to their own. But young Brian easily straddled the
town's two cultures, at ease with the working-class francophones with
whom he fraternized at Catholic school and unintimidated by
management-class Americans who ran the mill.
McCormick
liked to fish near the town he had built. He also liked to be
entertained. So it was that, on one of his fishing excursions to the
North Shore, McCormick's PR man sought out a seven-year-old reputed to
be a fine singer. Mulroney was escorted to Le Manoir, the hotel
McCormick had built. Perched atop a piano, he asked McCormick what he
wanted to hear. "And he said that his favourite song was Dearie but that
I wouldn't know it because how could a kid from Baie Comeau be expected
to know that. But I knew it and I sang it, and others as well,"
Mulroney told biographer L. Ian MacDonald in 1984. "And they gave me $50
and put me in the car and drove me home. And I gave it to my mother and
she just about had cardiac arrest."
This
anecdote has been appropriated by Mulroney's fans and critics alike.
The fans say it illustrates the magnetism of his personality. The
detractors say it shows how Mulroney was, from an early age, all too
eager to please the rich and powerful.
To
adopt the latter thesis, one has to assume a shallowness - not in
Mulroney, but in those who have succumbed to his charms. Desmarais,
Bush, Munk and Cisneros are a lot of things, but shallow they are not.
Mulroney
was no stranger to the business world when he left politics. A gifted
labour lawyer before entering public life in 1983, he had already
established a successful business career that, while not making him
rich, had certainly made him influential in Montreal financial circles.
Two men above all had been the young Mulroney's mentors. They were Paul
Desmarais and Pierre P{Zcaron}ladeau.
In
1964, 25-year-old Mulroney, fresh out of Laval University law school,
joined the Montreal firm of Howard, Cate, Ogilvy. His salary was $5,200 a
year. It was the same year that Péladeau, then 39, started the tabloid
Journal de Montréal during a strike at La Presse, Quebec's dominant
broadsheet. In 1967, the 40-year-old Desmarais bought La Presse;
P{Zcaron}ladeau and Desmarais instantly became rival media barons. Like
the papers they owned, the two men were a study in contrasts: Desmarais
was understated, debonair and ultrafederalist; P{Zcaron}
Péladeau was boisterous, funny-looking and a Quebec nationalist. Yet both men took to Mulroney.
When
workers at Le Journal de Montr{Zcaron}al unionized in the late 1960s,
Péladeau called on Mulroney to negotiate the first collective agreement.
In 1971, with La Presse once again embroiled in a lengthy labour
conflict, Desmarais, too, turned to Mulroney. By that time, the dispute
was already into its ninth month, and Péladeau's Journal was making deep
inroads into La Presse's readership. "So, I thought of Brian Mulroney
and said, 'We'll see whether he can be helpful,' " Desmarais recalls.
"He was very helpful. He related well to the negotiating teams, both
ours and the labour side. I think he had some influence on the labour
leaders, such as [late Quebec Federation of Labour president]Louis
Laberge. He got to know them and they trusted him." Within a week of
Mulroney's involvement, the conflict was settled.
After
that, Desmarais and his Power Corp. lieutenants regularly sought
Mulroney's counsel. "We used him as a labour lawyer from time to time.
But really he was more of a friend you would talk to whenever you had an
idea you needed to bounce off someone," Desmarais says. "He's a pretty
wise guy. He knew a lot of people, too. He got around a lot - more than I
ever did."
Neither Desmarais nor
Péladeau seemed to hold it against Mulroney that he had befriended, and
simultaneously worked for, their chief competitor. Such was the extent
of Mulroney's charm and legal skill. The same ease with competing
interests - labour, management, Liberals, Péquistes - was evident in
Mulroney's star turn on the Cliche inquiry into the construction
industry in 1974.
Shortly after his
first, unsuccessful bid for the Progressive Conservative leadership in
1976, Mulroney moved from a supporting role in the business world to the
corner office, as president of the Iron Ore Co. of Canada, a subsidiary
of Cleveland-based Hanna Mining. The position enabled Mulroney to not
only demonstrate his managerial skill - he turned a troubled company
into a highly profitable one and improved its labour relations record
despite closing its Schefferville, Que., operations - but also to extend
south his already considerable network. Iron Ore's parent had a
high-powered board, and Mulroney made sure all of its members took note
of his achievements.
By the time he
had decided, for the second time, to make the leap from business to
politics, Mulroney had accumulated no fewer than 10 notable
directorships, including Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Standard
Broadcasting (then controlled by Conrad Black) and Montreal's
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, his favourite haunt.
His
ability to win over almost anyone was the hallmark of Mulroney's quest
for 24 Sussex Drive. But charm in itself is no match for the centrifugal
tensions of actually being in power in Canada. Without the binding
force of his ambition and personality, the coalition that Mulroney put
together would split into no less than three parties - Reform, Bloc
Quebécois and a PC rump. The Prime Minister's office was not, by the
end, the most satisfying fit for Mulroney's abilities.
It
was clear he was not headed for retirement when, at barely 54, he
stepped down in 1993. Besides, he needed the money. As Iron Ore
president, Mulroney evidently never earned more than $400,000 a year.
For a decade he had lived on a politician's paltry salary, and his
pension on leaving office barely topped $33,000. With four
U.S.-college-bound children to support, having himself grown accustomed
to finer tastes, and with a new $1.67-million Westmount home and $1
million in renovations to pay for, Mulroney's lifestyle required a
salary in seven digits.
Perhaps it
was this pressure that led him, shortly after leaving office, to accept a
$300,000 consulting contract from Karlheinz Schreiber, the
German-Canadian businessman whose name would come back to haunt Mulroney
in the Airbus case. At the time, though, Schreiber had not been accused
of any illegal activities. In the end, Mulroney didn't need Schreiber's
business. His pro-market agenda as prime minister between 1984 and 1993
- centred around free trade, privatization and tax reform - had
ingratiated him to big business and helped usher in an era where global
networkers were indispensable to any ambitious company. As a recently
retired head of state, Mulroney was on a first-name basis with some of
the most powerful men and women on the planet. Combined with his people
skills and head for business - he could actually read a balance sheet -
he was an inviting catch for almost any major transnational corporation.
The offers poured in.
Shortly
before he left office, Mulroney lunched alone with a single guest. Peter
Munk barely knew the outgoing prime minister, but had nevertheless
requested the téte-a-téte. A couple of years earlier, Mulroney had made
an indelible impression on the Hungarian-born entrepreneur after Munk
stunned Bay Street with a $31.6-million gain on the stock options he
held in his American Barrick Resources Corp. (now Barrick Gold Corp.).
It was, at the time, the biggest payday ever recorded by a Canadian
corporate boss. The Barrick chairman was pilloried in the media, accused
of unabashed greed. But Munk - who had founded Barrick in 1983 and
helped its stock price soar 11-fold from 1986 to 1991 - figured he
deserved the reward. So did Mulroney. "I was in my office and the phone
rang," Munk recalls. "Someone on the other end said, 'This is the office
of the Prime Minister.' " Munk thought it was a joke. When a
distinctive baritone voice came on the line, he realized it wasn't. "I
just read about this coup you made and I want you to know that what
Canada needs is many more Peter Munks," Mulroney declared. "I'm proud of
you."
By 1993, Munk's mining empire
was expanding rapidly around the globe, particularly in Latin America.
Mulroney, who had just negotiated Canada's entry into the North American
Free Trade Agreement, knew the area intimately. Munk naturally figured
the former prime minister would be an excellent addition to Barrick's
board, and that of its largest shareholder, Munk's Horsham Corp. "No one
on our board knows the quality or quantity of people globally that
Brian does," Munk says now. "He has got this unbelievable network that
he has spent years and years developing. And he works enormously hard to
maintain those contacts. That's why those contacts are so alive and
useful. He wasn't born with them. He's not royalty."
Mulroney
joined the boards of Barrick and Horsham in November, 1993, and was
immediately granted options to buy 250,000 shares in each Munk firm. The
options grant was unprecedented for a non-executive director of a
Canadian company, and led shareholder-rights proponent William Riedl to
wonder, "Are Mulroney's contacts worth that much?"
They
were - Paul Desmarais, for instance. Munk and Desmarais had been
acquaintances, but hardly anything so intimate as business partners.
Mulroney changed that. The result was a Barrick-Power joint venture to
develop gold deposits in China. Of course, the partnership would have
been fruitless without the co-operation of the Chinese government. In
early 1994, Mulroney took Munk to China, and asked Desmarais to come
along. Desmarais was no slouch when it came to influencing the Chinese,
having done business in the Communist colossus for years. Mulroney,
though, had his own ins. The trio's dinner partner one night during the
trip ended up being none other than Zhu Rongji, then head of the Chinese
central bank, without whose accord access to the country's gold
deposits would have been impossible. "The next day we met the Premier,"
says a still-stunned Munk. "This is a good example of how Brian uses his
connections and contacts and turns them into international business
opportunities for the companies he's involved with."
Another
example: In 1994, Mulroney met with Argentinian President Carlos Menem
and his Chilean counterpart, Eduardo Frei. Barrick had acquired mining
concessions that straddled the historically contentious border between
the two countries. Developing the mines promised to be a logistical
nightmare, given laws that required miners to descend a mountain 48
kilometres and report to a border crossing before entering the part of
the mine located in the neighbouring country. Mulroney, Munk says, got
the countries to hammer out an agreement that allowed the Barrick
workers to cross the border freely. "That was of enormous importance to
us," says Munk.
In early 1995,
Mulroney asked his friend George Bush to work for Barrick. Bush was
reluctant. "I said, 'I have a policy, Brian. I don't go on
[corporate]boards,' " explains the former U.S. president. "But Brian
said, 'You wouldn't be on the board; you'll be a [senior
honorary]adviser. I think this will be a wonderful experience for you.'
And he was right." In 1996, Bush and Mulroney lobbied Indonesian
President Suharto on behalf of Barrick's bid to win control of the
Busang gold deposit in Borneo that had been discovered by Bre-X Minerals
Ltd. (Is this what Munk meant when, according to Titans author Peter C.
Newman, he once said Mulroney "knows every dictator in the world on a
first-name basis?" Munk denies having made the comment.) Suharto,
however, had a last-minute change of heart, and gave the concession to
another company. That was a lucky thing for Barrick, Bush and Mulroney:
What was supposed to be the world's biggest gold deposit ended up being
the world's biggest mining fraud.
By
1998, Mulroney was crisscrossing Europe on Barrick's behalf. He was
hired by the gold industry's World Gold Council to persuade European
central banks to stop dumping their stocks of the precious metal
willy-nilly into the market. Seconded by former Bank of Canada governor
John Crow, Mulroney lobbied the continent's most powerful central
bankers, presidents and prime ministers. The result was an agreement
that is credited with stabilizing the metal's price.
Barrick
occupied much of Mulroney's time during his early years out of office.
But he earned far fatter paycheques from his speaking engagements during
that period. Despite his oratorial prowess, Mulroney had no desire when
he retired from politics to keep making speeches. When he was
approached by Harry Rhoads Jr. of the Washington Speakers Bureau - the
same agency that then represented Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher -
Mulroney initially declined. It was Mila Mulroney, her husband says, who
made him change his mind. "She said, 'Listen, you've made 11,000
speeches as a politician for nothing. Now it's time to get out and make a
couple that you get paid for.' " Mulroney did far more than that. He
took on dozens of engagements during his first few years out of office,
talking largely about trade and leadership issues. At $45,000 (U.S.) a
pop - plus expenses - Mulroney pocketed as much as $1 million (U.S.) a
year from the gigs.
By late 1995,
however, Mulroney would have neither the time nor the inclination to do
much public speaking. His energies were consumed by a much more
important endeavour - clearing his name. His reputation in Canada was
already in tatters when he left office, one of the most unpopular prime
ministers in history. But any chance of restoring his name seemed dead
when it leaked out in 1995 that Mulroney had been named by the Canadian
government in a letter requesting assistance from Swiss authorities in
an RCMP investigation. The Mounties were looking into alleged illegal
commissions paid on then government-owned Air Canada's $1.8-billion
purchase of Airbus aircraft. The letter referred to "an ongoing scheme
by Mr. Mulroney, [lobbyist Frank]Moores and [Karlheinz]Schreiber to
defraud the Canadian government of millions of dollars."
News of the letter risked diminishing Mulroney's poor public standing even further. It also risked killing his business career.
"My
wife and family and I had some very difficult times," Mulroney says.
"There were some very sad moments when we were fighting off these
accusations against this army of lawyers and experts financed by the
taxpayers of Canada." But fight is exactly what Mulroney did, launching
an unprecedented $50-million libel suit against the federal government.
"Had the Chrétien government not tried to ruin my family and I with
those false and malicious allegations, you would never have heard a peep
out of me," says Mulroney, who had consciously kept a low profile in
Canada after leaving office. "But I had to defend myself, the honour of
my family and the good name of my government."
Mulroney
had effectively called the Chrétien government's bluff. In January,
1997, the two parties reached an out-of-court settlement that saw Ottawa
acknowledge that the allegations were unjustified and cover Mulroney's
legal and public relations fees - a $2-million tab. Far more important
than the money, however, was the apology that went with it. Still, it
would be six more years before the RCMP closed its investigation in the
case and fully exonerated Mulroney.
This
"Kafkaesque nightmare" behind him, Mulroney is circumspect about the
whole affair. Maybe he is saving the best for his memoirs. But he cannot
resist turning the knife ever so subtly: "I've made it a practice for
many years never to comment on the work of the police or their
informants," he says with evident satisfaction. Then, turning to a
cryptic quote from his political idol John Diefenbaker, he announces,
"It is a long road that has no ash cans." Mulroney laughs heartily at
this. Translation: What goes around, comes around.
When
the Airbus allegations became public, Mulroney sent offers of
resignation to Ogilvy Renault and all of the companies on whose boards
he sat. They were rejected. Indeed, Archer Daniels Midland called on
Mulroney to help it restore its own reputation.
Mulroney's
appointment to the ADM board, his first after leaving office, seemed
curious. It was a massive Midwestern agribusiness that made staples like
vegetable oil and corn syrup. Mulroney had no expertise in that field.
The company was known as a personal fiefdom of CEO Dwayne Andreas, who
had run it with an iron fist for a quarter of a century, affording
limitless opportunities for career advancement to his own family.
Andreas
knew Paul Desmarais, and sat on Power's international advisory board.
Another member of Power's board - and ADM's board - was Mulroney pal
Ross Johnson, the Canadian-born ex-CEO of RJR Nabisco, whose spectacular
attempt to take over his own company had been famously chronicled in
Barbarians at the Gate.
But if
personal relationships helped him land a job, Mulroney proved that they
did not stop him from exercising his fiduciary duty. In July, 1995, ADM
tapped Mulroney and former company chairman John Daniels to co-chair a
board committee to craft the company's response to price-fixing
allegations.
The result was a massive overhaul of ADM's board and the
departure of several Andreas cronies, including his son and heir
apparent Michael Andreas, who later spent time in jail in connection
with the scandal. Mulroney was the key figure in negotiating a
settlement on the price-fixing charges that saw ADM pay $100 million
(U.S.), a record antitrust fine at the time. Mulroney went head-to-head
with Dwayne Andreas, then 78, who resisted the radical strategy,
especially the sacrificing of his son.
Mulroney's
work was lauded by analysts, who described him as "an important agent
of change." The day the settlement was announced, ADM's shares hit a
52-week high. Mulroney had earned high regard within ADM too. After
Dwayne Andreas stepped down in 1997, his successor, his nephew Allen
Andreas, brought Mulroney into his inner circle as a member of his
executive committee. "Brian was instrumental in guiding us during a
period when we brought in a new code of ethics and revamped the entire
structure of the board to meet new requirements that have since been put
in place by the Securities and Exchange Commission," Allen Andreas
says.
Dwayne Andreas was not the
only high-powered CEO that Mulroney met through Paul Desmarais. In 1996,
Mulroney went to a party at Desmarais's Montreal home that was also
attended by Gustavo Cisneros, who sat with the host on the international
advisory board of the Chase Manhattan Bank.
Mulroney and Cisneros hit
it off immediately. The two shared a common passion: free trade. "I had
always had the greatest respect for Brian Mulroney as prime minister,"
says Cisneros, whose personal wealth is estimated at $4.6 billion (U.S.)
and whose empire includes Venezuela's largest broadcaster, Peru's
largest brewer and the Miss Venezuela contest. "Brian understood more
than anybody else how important free trade was to Canadian prosperity.
And I had been very involved in free trade discussions from a
Latin-American point of view. So, I knew all about him."
Mulroney
and Cisneros stayed in touch. The following year, when Cisneros was
looking for directors for his Latin-American pay-TV company
Ibero-American Media Partners Ltd., he thought of his new Canadian
friend. Eventually, the friendship grew to include both men's wives and
children. In 1999, they all went on a two-week safari in southern
Africa. It was there that Cisneros learned just how plugged-in Mulroney
really was. "He slept with a radio," Cisneros laughs. "So, in the
morning, we would get a briefing on everything that was happening in the
world. We were the most well-informed safari ever."
Mulroney
recommended Cisneros - a fierce opponent of Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez, who has accused the media baron of complicity in the country's
short-lived 2002 coup d'état - to another friend, Peter Munk. Cisneros
joined Barrick's international advisory board in 2003, and its board of
directors later that year.
Cisneros's
partner in Ibero-American was Dallas-based leveraged buyout wizard Tom
Hicks. By the late 1990s, his firm, Hicks Muse Tate & Furst Inc.,
had done deals worth more than $50 billion (U.S.) during its 15-year
existence. Hicks also had become a major figure in pro sports, after
personally buying the Dallas Stars and the Texas Rangers. The latter
purchase in 1998 enabled Hicks's friend George W. Bush, then governor of
Texas, to pocket a profit of at least $15 million (U.S.) on his initial
$600,000 investment in the team.
After
Cisneros recruited Mulroney for the Ibero-American board, Hicks asked
the ex-prime minister to sit on Hicks Muse's Latin-American strategy
board, scouting out investments and offering advice about the region's
volatile political climate. Eventually, Mulroney became the chairman of
that board and of the firm's European strategy board. Over dinner in
Chile, in 2000, Hicks asked Mulroney to join the firm on a full-time
basis. Mulroney declined, instead opting to become a senior counsellor
with an undisclosed equity interest in the firm. In addition to
identifying new investment opportunities, Mulroney was charged with
recruiting high-profile names to the firm's advisory boards. His first
catch? Henry Kissinger. "Brian's proven to be just what we hoped for.
He's a sage adviser and he's got great judgment," says Hicks, citing
Mulroney's involvement in Hicks Muse's $406-million purchase this year,
with two bank-owned equity funds, of Canadian cable company Persona Inc.
Hicks
also credits Mulroney with saving his partnership with Cisneros. After
the 2001 merger of Ibero-American with El Sitio Inc., an Argentinian
internet company, Cisneros and Hicks reached an impasse while
renegotiating the terms of their ownership in the merged company,
Claxson Interactive Group Inc. Mulroney summoned Hicks and Cisneros to a
meeting at the latter's New York home. "It was one of those things that
could have gone either way," says Hicks. "But because Brian had the
trust of both sides, we were able to reach an agreement to redo our
partnership very effectively."
Just
what is the Mulroney magic that turns antagonistic rivals into
concordant, if sometimes reluctant, partners? As a labour lawyer,
Mulroney settled more disputes than a thousand schoolyard monitors put
together. As a politician, he built the most impressive coalition in
Canadian history. And now, as a business globetrotter, he continues to
play matchmaker and marriage counsellor with uncanny success.
"Instead
of focusing only on the problem at hand, he focuses on human nature and
the way people react," says his long-time confidant and former deputy
chief of staff in Ottawa, Luc Lavoie, now an executive vice-president at
Quebecor Inc. "He never bullies people and he makes sure that both
sides in any negotiation come out of it with their dignity intact. And
he never wears out. He can go on for hours, always with his eye on the
ball."
Grupo Cisneros and
Independent News are the lesser-known, in Canada, of the three media
leviathans with which Mulroney is most closely associated. In early
1997, Mulroney reunited with his mentor, Pierre Péladeau, joining the
board of Quebecor Printing Inc. Already overburdened with his other
corporate and charitable obligations, Mulroney expected his involvement
with the Péladeaus to end there. Fate would determine otherwise.
On
Dec. 2 of that year, Pierre Péladeau suffered a massive heart attack.
He lay in a coma for three weeks before his death on Christmas Eve. His
sons, Pierre Karl, then 36, and Erik, 42, were ill-prepared for the loss
of their father. Pierre Péladeau had left no clear succession plan in
place. Chaos could have ensued. "A couple of months after Pierre died,
the boys asked me to have lunch with them at le Club Saint-Denis,"
Mulroney says. "With the loss of their dad, they felt it might be
helpful to have someone around with some grey in his hair, someone who
knew the family, who knew the culture of the business, and who wouldn't
be pushed around by anybody."
For
the first couple of years, the relationship was mostly conducted through
Ogilvy Renault, Quebecor's law firm. Mulroney offered advice or opened
doors as requested. He was instrumental in Quebecor's first major foray
into the English-language media business, the gutsy $983-million
purchase of the Sun newspaper chain in 1998. And he played matchmaker
the following year in Quebecor Printing's $1.4-billion (U.S.) bid for
U.S. giant World Color Press Inc. New York leveraged buyout firm
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts owned a quarter of World Color's stock, and was
reluctant to tender its shares. "At a certain point we faced a
deal-breaker," Pierre Karl P{Zcaron}ladeau says. "Because of his
personal contact with Henry Kravis, Mr. Mulroney was able to get the
parties together and get the transaction done."
Since
then, Mulroney's role at Quebecor has grown exponentially. In 1999, he
became chairman of Sun Media, stepping in as interim CEO of the
country's second-biggest newspaper chain when his friend Paul Godfrey
left in early 2000. Later in 2000, Mulroney defused an explosive battle
between Péladeau and John Weaver, the CEO of newsprint producer
Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.
Mulroney
also put Péladeau and Ted Rogers back on speaking terms. In the venomous
battle for Quebec cable giant Groupe Vid{Zcaron}otron Lt{Zcaron}e in
2000, Quebecor killed a friendly deal between Vidéotron's controlling
shareholder, Andr{Zcaron} Chagnon, and Rogers Communications Inc. by
enlisting the deep pockets of the Caisse de dépot et placement du Québec
and going to court to quash a lock-up agreement between Chagnon and
Rogers. Mulroney used an invitation to his daughter Caroline's wedding
in September, 2000, to get his friends Rogers and Péladeau to bury the
hatchet and begin thinking about deals they could do together. Rogers's
cellphone unit has since become one of the principal sponsors of Star
Académie, the mega-hit reality show that runs on Quebecor's TVA network,
acquired in the Vidéotron deal.
Whether
or not Péladeau views Mulroney as a father figure, there is no denying
how deeply he values the older man's counsel. Despite their closeness,
Péladeau remains unflinchingly deferential toward Mulroney, always
addressing him with the polite "vous" and never the more familiar "tu."
"Pierre Karl says 'vous' to a lot of people, but there are not many whom
he has known for a long time that he still calls 'Mr.,' " says
Péladeau's partner, TV producer and host Julie Snyder. "Mr. Mulroney
represents for him the past, present and future. He is a reassuring
presence, because he was a friend of his father and his father had so
much respect for Mr. Mulroney."
Péladeau
is not the only jeune loup Mulroney has taken under his wing. He is a
big backer of New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, and has dispensed
career advice to the ambitious 38-year-old, who considered running for
the federal Conservative Party leadership this year. "He wouldn't push
me one way or the other," Lord says. "But he told me what to expect." In
anticipation of Lord's eventual rise to the national stage, Mulroney
has also helped the young premier to network. In July, 2002, he
organized a retreat with Lord at Larry's Gulch, a provincial
government-owned lodge on the Restigouche River, famous for its salmon
fishing. The guest list included Péladeau, Paul Desmarais Jr.,
then-Barrick CEO Randall Oliphant, Tom Hicks, Allen Andreas and a
special guest--the elder George Bush. The latter remembers the weekend
fondly, although, he laments, "the promise was to get some fish, which
we got none of." Adds Lord: "What struck me in those few days was the
real friendship [Mulroney]had with these people, especially Mr. Bush."
Bush,
Hicks, Cisneros, Desmarais, Péladeau, O'Reilly, Andreas, Munk, Forbes.
This is the core of Mulroney's international network. It remains so
solid, Desmarais Sr. explains, "because he works at his relationship
with people. If you read the newspapers, you'd think nobody likes Brian
Mulroney. But the fact is, he is much more than Gucci shoes. He's an
extraordinary man."
He has also
become an extraordinarily wealthy one. Mulroney has pocketed millions in
stock option gains over the past decade. A cursory glance at a few
recent management proxy circulars indicates that he will get $200,000
(U.S.) this year as a director of ADM, $188,000 (U.S.) at Cendant (where
he holds 420,625 options and shares) and a $75,000 (U.S.) director's
fee at Barrick, in addition to an undisclosed salary as chairman of the
company's international advisory board. In the past, Mulroney's
consulting on Barrick's behalf has earned him an annual stipend of as
much as $462,000 (U.S.). Mulroney also holds 350,000 Barrick options. He
shares in the profits at Ogilvy Renault and owns equity in Hicks Muse
Tate & Furst. Were he a CEO, his annual take from all of his
business activities would likely place him near the top of the best-paid
list.
And, at retirement age, he
shows no signs of slowing down. Next month, Mulroney will be in New
York, Texas, Beijing, Shanghai, London and Dublin on business. It's as
if the past year, marked by his exoneration in the Airbus affair and the
reappraisal of his legacy as prime minister, has energized Mulroney.
Indeed, more than wealth, it is recognition that the boy from Baie
Comeau values most. "He enjoys the contrast between where he came from
and where he is today," says Mulroney's friend Jonathan Deitcher, a
Montreal stockbroker. "It makes what he does more meaningful to him."
Deitcher recalls a dinner in the ballroom of the Chateau Frontenac hotel
in Quebec City during the 1987 royal visit. Deitcher was eager to know
what Mulroney was whispering to the Queen as the two sat at the head
table. He was telling her, his friend recounted, that his father was one
of the electricians who wired the room decades before.
Mulroney
must have been imbued with this same pride at his glittering party in
Palm Beach. He had not invented a past to gain a spot in the rarefied
world of the rich. He had written the story himself.
Mulroney's Network Paul Desmarais (MONTREAL): The Power Corp. patriarch is the source point of Mulroney's global web
Pierre
Karl Péladeau (MONTREAL): Mulroney's longest and deepest involvement is
with Quebecor, lately as counsel to hot-tempered "PKP"
Allen
Andreas (DECATUR, ILL.): The Andreas clan called on Mulroney to clean
up after a scandal at agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland
Steve Forbes (NEW YORK): The publisher made Mulroney chairman of Forbes Global
George Bush Sr. (HOUSTON): He and Mulroney bonded during the Reagan years, and later collaborated on NAFTA
Tom Hicks (DALLAS): Mulroney is a senior counsellor to the LBO wizard's firm, Hicks Muse Tate & Furst
Gustavo Cisneros (CARACAS): The Latin Rupert Murdoch esteems Mulroney's advice at AOL Latin America
Tony O'Reilly (DUBLIN): Mulroney is on the global advisory board of the media baron's Independent News and Media Group
Peter Munk (SWITZERLAND/ TORONTO): His Barrick Gold was a focus of Mulroney's first post-PM work.
Munk relies on Mulroney for contacts and problem-solving around the world
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
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 formerly 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 formerly 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:
60In 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:
27Thus, 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.
28The 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."
29It 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.
30That 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.
31There 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.
32In 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
|
I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.
ReplyDeleteContact me -
Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
WhatsApp No: +27663492930