https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-nurses-pandemic-libel-suit-1.6307238
3 Ontario nurses disciplined for social media posts related to pandemic launch $1M libel suit
Canadian Nurses Association, B.C. media company Together News Inc. are named as defendants
Three Ontario nurses who have faced discipline for their stances on the pandemic are suing the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) and a media outlet in British Columbia, with the libel suit seeking $1 million.
Kristen Nagle of London, Kristal Pitter of Tillsonburg and Sara Choujounian of Toronto have been investigated by the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO) for sharing their controversial views about the pandemic on social media.
All three nurses are entitled to practise in Ontario without restrictions.
Pitter, a nurse practitioner and former nursing home inspector for the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care, has been cautioned by the CNO, along with Nagle, about spreading misinformation on social media about the pandemic.
Nagle, a former neonatal intensive-care nurse at London Health Sciences Centre, was fired last January after she was charged by law enforcement for failing to comply with Ontario's emergency pandemic health restrictions in November 2020. She was charged again in April 2021.
3 are members of Canadian Frontline Nurses
Choujounian, a former practical nurse with a Toronto home-care agency, will face a CNO disciplinary hearing this June for professional misconduct in connection with a dozen social media posts related to the pandemic, including claims surgical masks increase the risk of cancer, the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax and COVID-19 vaccines are "unsafe."
Nagle
and Choujounian, first and second on the left, are shown with other
members of Global Frontline Nurses in this Instagram photo from January
2021. (Sarah Choujounian/Instagram)
Nagle and Choujounian were also investigated by the Ontario nursing regulator for making a trip to Washington with a group of peers, during last January's non-essential travel ban, for allegedly promoting theories that the pandemic is a hoax and hospitals had a role to play in misrepresenting it.
All three nurses are part of Canadian Frontline Nurses (CFN), an offshoot of Global Frontline Nurses, that was created to "empower health-care workers who disagree with lockdowns," according to the CFN's Facebook page.
The statement of claim was filed in a Toronto court on Dec. 13, 2021, by the CFN on behalf of Pitter, Nagle and Choujounian, and names four defendants:
- The CNA.
- CNA president Tim Guest.
- CNA's chief executive officer, Michael Villeneuve.
- The B.C. media company Together News Inc., which has four small-town newspapers in the Comox Valley.
The lawsuit claims the defamatory statements against the plaintiffs were made by each organization separately in September 2021, against a backdrop of anti-lockdown demonstrations at hospitals across Canada.
CNA article didn't refer to nurses by name
In its allegations against the CNA, the lawsuit claims the organization made defamatory statements about Pitter, Nagle and Choujounian on its website on Sept. 9, 2021, in an anonymous opinion piece titled "Enough is enough: professional nurses stand for science-based health care."
Nagle,
left, was charged by authorities in connection with this anti-lockdown
rally in Victoria Park in London, Ont., in November 2020. (Sofia Rodriguez/CBC News)
The article does not name Pitter, Nagle or Choujounian. Instead, it makes reference to "the reckless views of a handful of discredited people who identify as nurses," saying they "have aligned in some cases with angry crowds who are putting public health and safety at risk."
The CNA post also refers to the demonstrators at the September hospital protests as "surly mobs" who "harass, threaten, and even assault health-care workers coming and going in the business of saving lives."
The lawsuit says that while the CNA article did not explicitly refer to the plaintiffs by name, it "was intended" and "could be understood to refer to them," claiming the CNA "knew or ought to have known" the statements were libel.
The statement of claim said the CNA article was "meant and was understood to mean" the plaintiffs "are not nurses," are "anti-science," "put public health and safety at risk" and "formed part of a crowd that was intent on causing trouble or violence" through harassing and threatening health-care workers.
Suit claims plaintiffs faced 'ridicule, hatred'
In its allegations against Together News Inc., the lawsuit claims, the company made defamatory statements in an anonymous opinion piece published on Sept. 11, 2021, entitled "Quack! Quack! These pro-virus nurses have dangerous ideas."
The article explicitly names Canadian Frontline Nurses, Pitter, Nagle and Choujounian.
The statement of claim alleges the article paints the three registered nurses as "disgraced," "highly disturbed and unstable" and that all three women were "terminated because their employers did not trust them."
The lawsuit also claims the TNI article suggests "Pitter was responsible for COVID deaths in long-term care facilities," and paints Nagle and Choujounian as participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest that resulted in an attack on the U.S. Capitol Building.
The lawsuit says Pitter, Nagle and Choujounian have been subjected to "ridicule, hatred and contempt," and have been "injured in their feelings, their personal and professional character and reputation."
Court documents also say the three registered nurses "continue to suffer personal embarrassment and humiliation, and have experienced great emotional anxiety" as a result of the publications.
Lawsuit asks for $1M in damages
The plaintiffs are asking for $750,000 in general damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.
CBC News contacted the CNA on Friday. Through a spokesperson, the organization said via email it couldn't comment because it "had no knowledge of this lawsuit and has yet to be served."
Also Friday, Together News Inc. said in an email that it would not comment on the matter as it had yet to receive court documents.
"We have not been served, so don't have sufficient detail to comment at this time," the email said.
CBC News also spoke with Alexander Boissonette-Lehner, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, on Friday.
"As the matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time," he said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
https://www.facebook.com/CanadianFrontlineNurses/
Created
to empower healthcare workers who disagree with the lockdowns. Let's
unite, organize, educate and fight back. This is also a place where
people can come and learn the truth. We are planting seeds of knowledge
& hope, if you agree...please share.
See less
13,853 people like this
25,245 people follow this
Send message
- That would be us
117 Comments
David Raymond AmosPerhaps we should talk because your lawyer will not pick up the phone3 Ontario nurses disciplined for social media posts related to pandemic launch $1M libel suitDAVIDRAYMONDAMOS3.BLOGSPOT.COM3 Ontario nurses disciplined for social media posts related to pandemic launch $1M libel suit
http://www.johnstonecowling.com/professionals/alexander-boissonneau-lehner/
ALEXANDER BOISSONNEAU-LEHNER, B.A., J.D.
BARRISTER & SOLICITOR
alehner@johnstonecowling.com
Telephone: 416-546-2125
Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner is an associate at Johnstone & Cowling LLP. Alex’s areas of practice include labour and employment law, human rights law, and civil litigation.
Over the course of his legal career, Alex has litigated cases at all at levels of Courts in Ontario and has also appeared as counsel before various tribunals and boards.
Alex received his Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of Toronto in 2008 and a Juris Doctor from the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law in 2013. While in law school, Alex served as the coordinator for the University of Calgary’s Pro Bono Students Canada program.
Alex started his legal career at a boutique litigation firm in downtown Toronto. He then built and ran his own firm focused on employment and general litigation. Immediately before he joined Johnstone & Cowling LLP, Alex worked as an employment lawyer at a management-oriented firm in Mississauga.
CNA News Room
CNA announces retirement of Michael Villeneuve, CEO
December 7, 2021
Dear colleagues,
After a career in health care that began as an orderly at Ottawa’s Montfort Hospital in 1978, Michael Villeneuve has announced his intention to retire as CEO of the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) as of March 31, 2022.
Under Mike’s leadership, CNA has implemented many historical changes. These include our new membership model, a new governance model, new by-laws, the new Canadian Academy of Nursing, and the launching of our Fellowship and Accreditation programs. CNA’s advocacy and media efforts have increased noticeably and helped position nurses’ voices to be heard in an impactful way as we saw with medical assistance in dying, long-term care, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and most recently the unfolding health human resources crisis. Mike’s insights and personal values have led the beginning of much needed work against systemic racism in our health systems and action to advance our truth and reconciliation work.
With all these changes led by Mike, CNA now has a new brand, positioning the organization as a strong, member-driven organization that is answering the call of nurses. CNA is on a solid foundation to move into the future, serving nurses, our profession, and the public.
On behalf of the CNA board of directors and staff, we extend our deepest gratitude to Mike for his tremendous contributions to CNA and the nursing profession at large. The list of accomplishments achieved since he assumed the role in June 2017 reflect his outstanding hard work, dedication, and passion for nursing and for CNA. We look forward to continuing to work with Mike while ensuring a smooth transition to the next CEO. Details about the succession plan will follow in the new year. I know you will all join me in wishing Mike well as he steps into the next phase of his life!
Tim Guest, M.B.A., B.Sc.N., RN
President
president@cna-aiic.ca#news-release
#featured
CNA News Room
CNA supports amendments to the Criminal Code that will protect health-care workers
November 26, 2021 – The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) commends the federal government for introducing legislation to protect health-care workers and ensure safe access to health care. The new bill creates new offences under the Criminal Code that will make it illegal to obstruct access to health facilities and to threaten or intimidate health-care workers. This new legislation will assist in retaining nurses in the workforce and avoid further escalation of the ongoing critical nursing shortages in Canada.
CNA has long been advocating for violence-free workplaces in health-care settings, where nurses have the right to work in respectful environments, safe from threats and intimidation. According to a Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU) survey, over 80% of nurses reported facing physical violence from patients and families at work. CNA also welcomes the requirement for courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target health-care workers engaged in their duties or who impede others from obtaining health services.
“It is imperative that nurses feel safe at work. During the fall, we saw several protests in front of hospitals where nurses were harassed, threatened, and even assaulted while coming and going in the business of saving lives,” said Tim Guest, president of CNA. “With the ongoing nursing shortages, we welcome and fully support this legislation as it will help to ensure respectful working environments for health-care workers who are already past the breaking point,” said Guest.
CNA is committed to working and collaborating with the government and parliamentarians to see this bill come into law. We look forward to offering our resources and nursing expertise to help inform this important work and ensure the safety of all health-care workers.
-30-
About the Canadian Nurses Association
CNA is the national and global professional voice of Canadian nursing. We represent registered nurses, nurse practitioners, licensed and registered practical nurses, registered psychiatric nurses, retired nurses, and nursing students across all 13 provinces and territories.
For more information, please contact:
Eve JohnstonMedia & Communications Advisor
Cell: 613-282-7859
Email: ejohnston@cna-aiic.ca
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:45:48 +0000
Subject: RE: Your buddy Higgy must have figured out by now that I have
had enough of Cardy's nonsense and am as serious as a heart attack
about my right to Heath Care N'esy Pas Rob Mooe a Doug Ford???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a
Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for
review and consideration.
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous
informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les
meilleurs délais.
Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre
secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel
pour examen et considération.
If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
(506) 453-2144 or by email
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:med
S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.
Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton
New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada
Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
Email/Courriel:
premier@gnb.ca/premier.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Austin, Kris (LEG)" <Kris.Austin@gnb.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:45:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Your buddy Higgy must have figured out by
now that I have had enough of Cardy's nonsense and am as serious as a
heart attack about my right to Heath Care N'esy Pas Rob Mooe a Doug
Ford???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
We will be out of the office until 8am January 4, 2022
Emails and phone messages will be checked periodically.
For urgent matters, please call 440-9542 and leave a message.
We wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Sincerely,
Kris Austin
Leader-People's Alliance Party
506-462-5875
---------- Original message ----------
From: Justice Minister <JUSTMIN@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:46:00 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Your buddy Higgy must have figured out by
now that I have had enough of Cardy's nonsense and am as serious as a
heart attack about my right to Heath Care N'esy Pas Rob Mooe a Doug
Ford???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email to the Minister of Justice. Please be assured
that it has been received by the Department. Your email will be
reviewed and addressed accordingly. Thank you.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:45:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Your buddy Higgy must have figured out by
now that I have had enough of Cardy's nonsense and am as serious as a
heart attack about my right to Heath Care N'esy Pas Rob Mooe a Doug
Ford???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:43:29 -0400
Subject: Your buddy Higgy must have figured out by now that I have had
enough of Cardy's nonsense and am as serious as a heart attack about
my right to Heath Care N'esy Pas Rob Mooe a Doug Ford???
To: premier <premier@ontario.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, robert.gauvin@gnb.ca, Newsroom
< Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>,
pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, Viva
Frei <david@vivafrei.com>, "freedomreport.ca"
< freedomreport.ca@gmail.com>, sheilagunnreid
< sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, Office of the Premier
< scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier
< premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, premier
< premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, "pierre.poilievre"
< pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>,
president@nanb.nb.ca, mewithers@nanb.nb.ca, cclockedile@nanb.nb.ca,
mbrown@nanb.nb.ca, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>,
"andrea.anderson-mason" <andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon"
< David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>,
kristar@frederictonchamber.ca, "Tim.RICHARDSON"
< Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca>, "Mitton, Megan (LEG)" <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>,
"Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)" <Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca>, "michelle.conroy"
< michelle.conroy@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>,
oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, JUSTMIN
< JUSTMIN@novascotia.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson"
< John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>,
"robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "Roger.L.Melanson"
< roger.l.melanson@gnb.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)" <Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:02:48 +0000
Subject: RE: I just called Nurses Association of New Brunswick and
they played dumb so perhaps Michel Carrier and his SANB lawyer pals
can explain why I called N'esy Pas Serge Rouselle?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a
Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for
review and consideration.
Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous
informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les
meilleurs délais.
Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre
secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel
pour examen et considération.
If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at
(506) 453-2144 or by email
media-medias@gnb.ca<mailto:med
S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le
Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144.
Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre
P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada
Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144
Email/Courriel:
premier@gnb.ca/premier.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 14:32:37 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: I just called Nurses Association of New
Brunswick and they played dumb so perhaps Michel Carrier and his SANB
lawyer pals can explain why I called N'esy Pas Serge Rouselle?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Moore, Rob - M.P." <Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 14:32:41 +0000
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
On behalf of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. thank you for your
email. Our office appreciates the time you took to get in touch with
our office. Due to the high volume of email correspondence our office
receives, below is a guide on how your email will be responded to:
Constituent of Fundy Royal:
The constituents of Fundy Royal are our office’s priority. Please
ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the
appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to
ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely
manner.
If your query is case related (i.e. immigration, CPP, EI, CRA, etc.),
consent forms will need to be filled out before your file can be
activated. If you have not yet filled out our office’s consent form, a
staff member will be in contact with you.
If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office:
506-832-4200.
Event Invitations and Meeting Requests:
If you have sent meeting request or an event invitation, we sincerely
appreciate the kind request and we will check his availability to see
if his schedule can accommodate.
Invitations for Fundy Royal are managed in the riding office and
Ottawa based events and meetings are managed from the Parliamentary
office. The appropriate staff will follow up on your request.
Non-Constituent Enquiries:
If you are not a Fundy Royal resident, given the high volume of emails
we receive, your email will be reviewed and filed as INFORMATION. If
the email is Critic portfolio in nature, it will be responded to as
necessary.
Again, we sincerely appreciate you taking the time to contact the
office of the Honourable Rob Moore.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:32:32 -0400
Subject: Fwd: I just called Nurses Association of New Brunswick and
they played dumb so perhaps Michel Carrier and his SANB lawyer pals
can explain why I called N'esy Pas Serge Rouselle?
To: premier <premier@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "hugh.flemming"
< hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, robert.gauvin@gnb.ca, "bruce.northrup"
< bruce.northrup@gnb.ca>, Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca, megan.mitton@gnb.ca,
jwhitehead@nanb.nb.ca, ejohnston@cna-aiic.ca, execdir@npls.ca,
president@nanb.nb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre <andre@jafaust.com>,
"robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "PETER.MACKAY"
< PETER.MACKAY@bakermckenzie.
< traversy.n@gmail.com>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford"
< Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
Nathalie Sturgeon <sturgeon.nathalie@
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "Robert. Jones"
< Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>
https://twitter.com/
David Raymond Amos
@DavidRayAmos
·Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
Methinks CBC et al may enjoy a little Deja Vu about Clinic 554 before
the last election I ran in while clearly stating that I am PRO LIFE
N'esy Pas?
http://davidraymondamos3.
#nbpoli #cdnpoli
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:00:42 -0400
Subject: Fwd: I just called Nurses Association of New Brunswick and
they played dumb so perhaps Michel Carrier and his SANB lawyer pals
can explain why I called N'esy Pas Serge Rouselle?
To: president@nanb.nb.ca, mewithers@nanb.nb.ca,
cclockedile@nanb.nb.ca, mbrown@nanb.nb.ca,
peter.lindfield@
< hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "andrea.anderson-mason"
< andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant"
< brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin"
< kris.austin@gnb.ca>, kristar@frederictonchamber.ca, "Tim.RICHARDSON"
< Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca>, "Mitton, Megan (LEG)" <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>,
"Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)" <Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca>, "robert.mckee"
< robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "robert.gauvin" <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>,
"rick.desaulniers" <rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca>, "michelle.conroy"
< michelle.conroy@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>,
oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com
Cc: "david.raym\"David Amos\"" <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Nurse practitioners fear for patients amid clinic closures,
redeployment to COVID test sites
Horizon to close clinics in Saint John for two weeks starting today,
NPNB president says
Marie Sutherland · CBC News · Posted: Dec 20, 2021 7:00 AM AT
56 Comments
.
David Amos
Hmmm
David Amos
Reply to @David Amos: Nurse practitioners shocked by Higgs government
decision to charge for medical tests
Nurse practitioners say new rule that charges 'private' providers will
hurt orphan patients the most
Vanessa Blanch · CBC News · Posted: Apr 09, 2021 6:00 AM AT
https://www.npnb.ca/about-us
Nurse Practitioners of New Brunswick (NPNB) is an interest group
within the Nurses Association of New Brunswick (NANB) and a member of
Nurse Practitioners Association of Canada (NPAC).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
New Brunswick Nurses Union ratifies collective agreement with province
56% voted in favour of agreement offered by government this month
Miriam Lafontaine · CBC News · Posted: Dec 18, 2021 2:03 PM AT
http://www.nanb.nb.ca/contact/
Complaints
Melissa Everett Withers
General Counsel
mewithers@nanb.nb.ca
506-459-2830 (ext 830)
Catherine Clockedile
Paralegal
cclockedile@nanb.nb.ca
506-459-2878 (ext 878)
Marianne Brown
Senior Legal Assistant
mbrown@nanb.nb.ca
(506) 459-2866 (ext 866)
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 16:21:47 -0400
Subject: I just called Nurses Association of New Brunswick and they
played dumb so perhaps Michel Carrier and his SANB lawyer pals can
explain why I called N'esy Pas Serge Rouselle?
To: "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>, "Michel.Carrier"
< Michel.Carrier@gnb.ca>, president@nanb.nb.ca, ljanes@nanb.nb.ca,
jwhitehead@nanb.nb.ca, peter.lindfield@
"hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "andrea.anderson-mason"
< andrea.anderson-mason@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant"
< brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "David.Coon" <David.Coon@gnb.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin"
< kris.austin@gnb.ca>, kristar@frederictonchamber.ca, "Tim.RICHARDSON"
< Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca>, "Mitton, Megan (LEG)" <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>,
"Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)" <Kevin.A.Arseneau@gnb.ca>, "robert.mckee"
< robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "robert.gauvin" <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>,
"rick.desaulniers" <rick.desaulniers@gnb.ca>, "michelle.conroy"
< michelle.conroy@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>,
"Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc" <Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, oldmaison
< oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>
You folks can always talk to Chucky Leblanc and his new buddy Krista
Ross it seems that they know everybody and everything N'esy Pas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
CEO of the Fredericton Chamber of Commerce Krista Ross sits down to
educate Blogger!!!
Charles Leblanc
Published on Jan 16, 2019
Nurses Association of New Brunswick
165 Regent Street
Fredericton NB
Canada E3B 7B4
Phone: 506-458-8731
Jennifer Whitehead
Manager, Communications and Government Relations
jwhitehead@nanb.nb.ca
506-459-2852 (ext 852)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Nurses withdraw lawsuit against language commissioner over licensing exam
Nurses group was angry with commissioner's report on failure rate by
francophone nurses
CBC News · Posted: Jan 17, 2019 12:29 PM AT
The pass rate by francophone nursing graduates plunged after a new
licensing exam was adopted. (iStock)
The New Brunswick Nurses Association is withdrawing a lawsuit launched
last August against the commissioner of official languages after a
stinging report on the exam nurses take to get a licence.
The licensing body was challenging the commissioner's findings that it
broke the Official Languages Act by adopting an exam that put
francophone students at a disadvantage.
Nurses association sues language commissioner over nursing exam report
Watchdog says nursing exam puts francophone students at a disadvantage
The exam, developed from the American NCLX-RN licensing test, saw
University of Moncton nursing students with the highest failure rate
in the country.
After the exam was introduced in 2015, the school's success rate
dropped to 32 per cent from 91 per cent.
Former languages commissioner Katherine d'Entremont found there was a
lack of preparation material, such as practice tests, in French and
that the translation was weak, likely because it was done by people
who were not qualified translators.
The former commissioner of official languages said the lack of
preparatory materials and practice exams in French was a major factor
in the high failure rates. (CBC)
After discussions between the two parties, the nurses association
decided to withdraw the lawsuit from Fredericton Court of Queen's
Bench this week.
D-Entremont has retired, and the interim commissioner, Michel Carrier,
said the office would decline to comment on the reasons why the
lawsuit was dropped. The nurses association said it declined comment
for the time being.
The association is still being sued by the Acadian Society of New
Brunswick and the student federation at the University of Moncton, who
took it to court last May over the failure rate.
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Department of Justice
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)" <David.Eidt@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk
would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why
did she take all four copies?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have
little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate
Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du
bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> To: coi@gnb.ca
> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>
>
> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
> is no order as to costs.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment