CONVOY LAWYER vs D. JUSTICE MINISTER Emergency Act Commission Inquiry Live #canada #ottawa
26.6K subscribers
CONVOY LAWYER vs D. JUSTICE MINISTER
Emergency Act Commission Inquiry Live #canada #ottawa
Former Deputy Justice Minister Nathalie G. Drouin testifies at the Public Order Emergency Commission looking into the justification behind the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. 
Nathalie G. Drouin
Deputy Clerk, Privy Council Office
Nathalie G. Drouin became Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet on August 23, 2021.
Prior to joining the Privy Council Office, Mrs Drouin was Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada from June 2017 to August 2021. Mrs Drouin previously served as Senior Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice of Canada from September 2016 to June 2017.
From September 2012 to September 2016, Mrs Drouin was Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General for the Gouvernement du Québec.
In addition, she held a number of positions within the Authorité des marchés financiers, including Director of Legal Affairs and Director General of Market Supervision and Legal Affairs.
Nathalie G. Drouin holds a bachelor's degree in law and post-graduate diploma in business administration, both from Université Laval. She has been a member of the Quebec Bar since 1992.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl8kC4QpHTY&ab_channel=CBCNews
Top civil servant Michael Wernick testifies on SNC-Lavalin affair | Power & Politics
3.31M subscribers
137 Comments
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeCanadaEn/photos/in-2017-nathalie-g-drouin-became-the-1st-first-female-deputy-minister-of-the-dep/904984829649348/?paipv=0&eav=AfaQ4LLmO8J7hMXF4fiPsvsErIscRjrpPBueWtVydYRnQi3QVTg3sOE4swHe3YJCc-M&_rdr
RE Historic Fredericton justice building to become UNB law school
Drouin, Nathalie G<Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca> | Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:54 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Good day, Please note that I am currently away and I will be back in the office on Wednesday, July 5, 2023. For any assistance, please contact my office at (613) 957-5466 or my executive assistant at julie.legros@pco-bcp.gc.ca Thank you ******************** Bonjour, Veuillez noter que je suis présentement absente et je serai de retour au bureau mercredi le 5 juillet 2023. Pour toute assistance, veuillez communiquer avec mon bureau au (613) 957-5466 ou avec mon adjointe exécutive julie.legros@pco-bcp.gc.ca Merci | |
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> |  Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:53 AM |
| To: jrobichaud@fidelislaw.ca, cathy@fclaw.ca, hcameron@stewartmckelvey.com, caroline.lafontaine@gnb.ca, cheryl.scholten@gnb.ca, jlhanson@porlaw.com, partner@nb.aibn.com, vford@lawsoncreamer.com, melanie.tompkins@saintjohn.ca, michel.boudreau@fcnb.ca, jason-godin@outlook.com, michael.marin@unb.ca, tprofit@coxandpalmer.com, mmorin@lsbnb.ca, jdable@lsbnb.ca, nbosse@lsbnb.ca, jennifer.sweet@cbc.ca, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, oic-bci@gnb.ca, Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, "Hamish.Wright" <Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca>, keriess@postmedia.com, Eric.Mallet@gnb.ca, Arlene.Dunn@gnb.ca, Greg.Turner@gnb.ca, Daniel.J.Allain@gnb.ca, Ryan.Cullins@gnb.ca, Richard.Ames@gnb.ca, Margaret.Johnson@gnb.ca, Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca, Rene.Legacy@gnb.ca, "robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "robert.gauvin" <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, "Nathalie.G.Drouin" <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, "Michael.Duheme" <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Kevin.leahy" <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, washington field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Boston.Mail" <Boston.Mail@ic.fbi.gov> | |
| Cc: iga.minister-ministre.aig@pco-bcp.gc.ca, hannah.rudderham@cbc.ca, dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca, "Arseneau, Kevin (LEG)" <kevin.a.arseneau@gnb.ca>, "Mitton, Megan (LEG)" <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>, Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca | |
| IMHO Ethical students of law do not need a fancy building to do research. They can query the dockets from home on their laptops just like I do Out of the gate he "Lawmaker" Dominic LeBlanc and his cohorts should explain why Rule 55 exists because if judges can ignore the rules then there are no rules, Hence no need to study law at all Correct? https://laws-lois.justice.gc. Varying rule and dispensing with compliance 55 In special circumstances, in a proceeding, the Court may vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule. SOR/2004-283, s. 11 Veritas Vincit David Raymond Amos P.S. Kevin Arseneau and his Acadian buddies must have noticed by now that the document barring me from the legislative properties in NB is in ONE LANGUAGE ONLY and lots of people have listened to at least one Yankee wiretap tape EH? https://davidraymondamos3. Friday, 30 June 2023 Historic Fredericton justice building to become UNB law school https://www.cbc.ca/news/ | |
Historic Fredericton justice building to become UNB law school
A new justice building under construction on King Street is projected to open in 2025
A combined $62 million will be put toward making the project a reality, with $24.9 million from the federal government, $20.7 million from the province and $16.6 million from the University of New Brunswick.
Announcing the project Wednesday, Dominic LeBlanc, the federal minister of intergovernmental affairs, infrastructure and communities, said the money will pay for upgrades to the building's ventilation and communication systems, accessibility features and lighting.
It will also address flooding, he said. To avoid being closed because of high water some years, the Fredericton courthouse has had to relocate out of the downtown area, away from the St. John River.
Dominic
LeBlanc, the federal minister of intergovernmental affairs,
infrastructure and communities, said the money will support upgrades to
the building’s ventilation and communication systems, accessibility
features and lighting. (Pat Richard/CBC)
"The renewal of the building will preserve the history of the building, while providing a more modern and energy efficient space for students, faculty, staff and the public," said LeBlanc.
"This is very much about bringing the law faculty closer to the community [and] the community closer to the law students, the faculty [and] the researchers that will be doing work."
A new justice building is going up on King Street, between Regent and Carleton, scheduled to be completed by 2025 according to the province.
This mock-up shows the proposed reading room for the faculty of law in the renovated justice building. (Submitted by Regional Development Corporation)
Use of the building as a school isn't a new idea. In fact, it began as one.
The original stone and brick structure opened in 1876 as a Normal School for training teachers. In 1929, that building burned down, but the columned-front entrance was preserved and the school was rebuilt and reopened in 1931.
Eventually, it became the high school in Fredericton, and then in the 1970s was turned into a courthouse.
A rendering of what the courtroom will look like when the building reopens as the UNB faculty of law. (Submitted by Regional Development Corporation)
Premier Blaine Higgs said an estimated 350 new law students are expected to enrol in the faculty over the next five years.
With the downtown location, he said the school will be able to provide important services to the community, including a permanent home for the UNB legal clinic, which offers free legal representation for those who don't qualify for legal aid.
Michael Marin, the dean of law at UNB, said the building will be home to a legal observatory and multiple research centres. (Pat Richard/CBC)
Michael Marin, the dean of law, said the UNB legal clinic has already served more 100 clients in Fredericton.
There will also be multiple new research centres for "major legal and policy challenges," he said.
With the additional space for the faculty that will come with taking over the justice building, Marin said there will be room for new programs that will "make legal education more available to more people."
"In doing all of this, our students and professors will be interacting every day with the ordinary people they serve, enabling all kinds of informal learning that's just as important as anything taught in a classroom," he said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
9 Comments
David Amos
Aint that special?
Rod Hill
The photograph of the building with the word
"Justice" on it reminded me of a story that Ralph Nader tells about how
Richard Posner, a well-known judge, author and professor of law at the
University of Chicago, would begin his course by writing the word
'justice' on the blackboard and saying that that was the last time that
that word would be seen in this course.
Toby Tolly
from the cbc a few years ago...
Five of the last six federal appointments announced in New Brunswick include Leblanc's neighbour, a LeBlanc family relation and three lawyers who helped retire debts from his unsuccessful 2008 leadership bid. LeBlanc is currently minister of intergovernmental affairs, northern affairs and internal trade.
TO : APPEAL REGISTRY
FROM : WEBB J.A.
DATE : October 30, 2017
RE : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Court File: A-48-16
_______________________________________________________________________
DIRECTION
FROM : WEBB J.A.
DATE : October 30, 2017
RE : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Court File: A-48-16
_______________________________________________________________________
DIRECTION
The Registry is requested to advise the parties:
Upon notice that William F. Pentney, Q.C. is named as solicitor of record for the respondent;
Upon notice June 23, 2017, of the appointment of William F. Pentney, Q.C., former Deputy Attorney General of Canada, as judge of the Federal Court, and ex officio member of the Federal Court of Appeal;
And upon considering that pursuant to Rule 126(b)(i), a party is deemed not to be represented by a solicitor if that party does not appoint a new solicitor after its solicitor of record ceases to act for the party because of appointment to a public office incompatible with the solicitor’s profession;
And upon concluding that by the effect of Rule 126(b)(i), the respondent is deemed not to be represented by a solicitor;
And upon notice that Nathalie G. Drouin became Deputy Attorney General of Canada, effective June 26, 2017;
And upon considering Rule 55 which permits the Court to vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule;
The Court considers the solicitor of record for the respondent to be Nathalie G. Drouin, Deputy Attorney General of Canada.
“Wyman W. Webb”
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
[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.
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
|
Tuesday, 1 December 2020
N.B. COVID-19 roundup: Jennifer Russell, Dominic Cardy to hold news briefing
Whereas CBC has been killing my IDs and blocking most my
comments for political reasons in order to put their spin on the
narrative I decided to post some my replies within my blog ONLY then
email the smiling bastards what I have to say about various
articles
https://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.
[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.
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
https://davidraymondamos3.
Tuesday, 1 December 2020
N.B. COVID-19 roundup: Jennifer Russell, Dominic Cardy to hold news briefing
Whereas CBC has been killing my IDs and blocking most my
comments for political reasons in order to put their spin on the
narrative I decided to post some my replies within my blog ONLY then
email the smiling bastards what I have to say about various
articles
https://davidraymondamos3.
Automatic reply: Deja Vu Anyone?
Cathy Fawcett <cathy@fclaw.ca> Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:12 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I am out of the office until March 27, 2023. II will respond to your
message as soon as possible.
Cathy
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 09:12:53 -0300
Subject: Deja Vu Anyone?
To: jrobichaud@fidelislaw.ca, cathy@fclaw.ca,
hcameron@stewartmckelvey.com, caroline.lafontaine@gnb.ca,
cheryl.scholten@gnb.ca, jlhanson@porlaw.com, partner@nb.aibn.com,
vford@lawsoncreamer.com, melanie.tompkins@saintjohn.ca,
michel.boudreau@fcnb.ca, jason-godin@outlook.com,
michael.marin@unb.ca, tprofit@coxandpalmer.com, mmorin@lsbnb.ca,
jdable@lsbnb.ca, nbosse@lsbnb.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Mike.Comeau"
<Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, "Michael.Duheme"
<Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, jennifer.sweet@cbc.ca
https://davidraymondamos3.
Thursday, 23 March 2023
High-profile lawyer gets 1-month suspension for professional misconduct
| 7 attachments — Scan and download all attachments | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Hey Higgy Methinks Chucky the mindless Integrity Commissioner must have discussed my files with you and the Feds by now N'esy Pas?
Lametti, David - M.P.<David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca> | Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:35 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
(English version follows) VEUILLEZ NOTER QUE NOTRE BUREAU SERA FERMÉ LE LUNDI 26 JUIN 2023 POUR LA FÊTE NATIONALE.
------- Bonjour, Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le bureau de circonscription de l'honorable David Lametti, député de LaSalle-Émard-Verdun. Ceci est un message automatisé confirmant que nous recevons votre courriel. Afin de recevoir une réponse dans les meilleurs délais, assurez-vous d'inclure votre nom au complet, votre adresse résidentielle et votre code postal dans tous les courriels. Toutes les correspondances sont lues et examinées, mais nous ne répondrons qu’aux correspondances provenant de LaSalle-Émard-Verdun.
Encore une fois, merci d'avoir contacté notre bureau. Bureau de l'honorable David Lametti, C.P. député de LaSalle-Émard-Verdun ------- PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OFFICE WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2023 FOR ST. JEAN BAPTISTE. N.B. : We are aware of delays in processing immigration applications with IRCC. We advise you that currently, the waiting time is at least 30 days to receive an update. We will do our utmost to action urgent cases in a timely manner. ------- Good day,
In order to receive the most timely response, please be sure to include your full name, home address and postal code on all emails. All correspondence is read and reviewed, however only correspondence from inside LaSalle-Émard-Verdun may receive a direct response. If you wish to contact the Minister's office, please address your correspondence to: mcu@justice.gc.ca. Once again, thank you for reaching out to our office.
| |
Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada<mcu@justice.gc.ca> | Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:35 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language. ------------------- Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant. | |
Jensen, Jan<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca> | Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:35 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
I am out of office until July 4, 2023. If your matter is time sensitive or requires immediate assistance, please contact my assistant at (902) 426 2329 or Lorri.Warner@justice.gc.ca
| |
Moore, Rob - M.P.<Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca> | Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:35 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
*This is an automated response*
Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office.
If you did not already, 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 question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal
| |
Premier<PREMIER@novascotia.ca> | Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:35 PM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your email to Premier Houston. This is an automatic confirmation your message has been received. | |
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:35 PM |
| To: "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, oic-bci@gnb.ca, Charles.Murray@gnb.ca, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "kris.austin" <kris.austin@gnb.ca>, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, "Hamish.Wright" <Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca>, keriess@postmedia.com, Eric.Mallet@gnb.ca, Arlene.Dunn@gnb.ca, Greg.Turner@gnb.ca, Daniel.J.Allain@gnb.ca, Ryan.Cullins@gnb.ca, Richard.Ames@gnb.ca, Margaret.Johnson@gnb.ca, Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca, Rene.Legacy@gnb.ca, "robert.mckee" <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "robert.gauvin" <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca> | |
| Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, "Nathalie.G.Drouin" <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, "Michael.Duheme" <Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Kevin.leahy" <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca> | |
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 00:03:46 -0400 Subject: Re: CASE Query the dockets or just check my work within this email which is what all the Integrity/Ethics Commissioners failed to do To: "Cai, Min (2020)" <Min.Cai.2020@live.rhul.ac.uk> jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, "Nathalie.Drouin" <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca <Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca>, norahd@nb.sympatico.ca, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, dcinbc@yahoo.ca, keriess@postmedia.com, Eric.Mallet@gnb.ca, Arlene.Dunn@gnb.ca, Greg.Turner@gnb.ca, Daniel.J.Allain@gnb.ca, Ryan.Cullins@gnb.ca, Richard.Ames@gnb.ca, Margaret.Johnson@gnb.ca, Bill.Hogan@gnb.ca, Rene.Legacy@gnb.ca Cc: "info@iras.com" <info@iras.com>, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, "Mario.Dion" <Mario.Dion@cie.parl.gc.ca>, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, Charles.Murray@gnb.ca >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Murray, Charles (Ombud)" <Charles.Murray@gnb.ca> >> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:16:15 +0000 >> Subject: You wished to speak with me >> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com> >> >> I have the advantage, sir, of having read many of your emails over the >> years. >> >> >> As such, I do not think a phone conversation between us, and >> specifically one which you might mistakenly assume was in response to >> your threat of legal action against me, is likely to prove a >> productive use of either of our time. >> >> >> If there is some specific matter about which you wish to communicate >> with me, feel free to email me with the full details and it will be >> given due consideration. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> Charles Murray >> >> Ombud NB >> >> Acting IIntegrity Commissioner >> >> > ---------- 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 11/30/20, Cai, Min (2020) <Min.Cai.2020@live.rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > I was referred to you by the Bar Referral Services. Do advise if your firm > handles Litigation Cases. > > This email, its contents and any attachments are intended solely for the > addressee and may contain confidential information. In certain > circumstances, it may also be subject to legal privilege. Any unauthorised > use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. If you have received this > email in error, please notify us and immediately and permanently delete it. > Any views or opinions expressed in personal emails are solely those of the > author and do not necessarily represent those of Royal Holloway, University > of London. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email and any > attachments are virus free. > | |
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before The Supreme Court
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
|
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
|
Date
|
2017-10-30
|
Neutral citation
|
2017 FCA 213
|
File numbers
|
A-48-16
|
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation:
2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
|
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
|
Respondent
on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant) |
and
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
Appellant
on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent) |
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment
delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
|
THE
COURT
|
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16
Citation:
2017 FCA 213
CORAM:
|
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
|
Respondent
on the cross-appeal
(and formally Appellant) |
and
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
|
Appellant
on the cross-appeal
(and formerly Respondent) |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I.
Introduction
[1]
On September 16, 2015, David Raymond
Amos (Mr. Amos) filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million in
damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial Premiers
for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary properties and seeks a
declaration from the Minister of Public Safety that the Canadian Government
will no longer allow the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian
Forces to harass him and his clan (Claim at para. 96).
[2]
On November 12, 2015 (Docket
T-1557-15), by way of a motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the
Federal Court (the Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without
leave to amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious, and the
Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the Prothontary’s
Order).
[3]
On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by
way of Mr. Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr. Amos’
claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages for being barred
by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 (the Federal Court
Judgment).
[4]
Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown
cross-appealed the Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice
of Status Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19,
2016. As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s cross-appeal.
II.
Preliminary
Matter
[5]
Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact
and law in relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of the
judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal. This was the
first time that he identified the judges whom he believed had a conflict of
interest in a document that was filed with this Court. In his notice of appeal
he had alluded to a conflict with several judges but did not name those judges.
[6]
Mr. Amos was of the view that he did
not have to identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because
he had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed with the
Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal
are the same court and therefore any document filed in the Federal Court would
be filed in this Court. This view is based on subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of
the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or
her office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.
[…]
|
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la
Cour d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
[…]
|
5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue
of that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the jurisdiction,
power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
|
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges
de la Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
juges de la Cour fédérale.
|
[7]
However, these subsections only
provide that the judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and
vice versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the
Federal Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
section.
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