>> >>>>>>> ---------- 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 Integrity Commissioner
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 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.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-braz
>> >>>>>>>>> ilian.html
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 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?v=vugUalUO8YY
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 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/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly200
>> >>>>>>>>>> 6
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>
http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- 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.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Dec 14th
https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> January 11th, 2016
https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> April 3rd, 2017
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>>
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The only hearing thus far
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> May 24th, 2017
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 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.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 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.Foran@gnb.ca,
>> >>>>>>>>>
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
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>>
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/federal-court-of-appeal-finally-makes.html
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Sunday, 19 November 2017
>> >>>>>>>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And
>> >>>>>>>> Publishes
>> >>>>>>>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter
>> >>>>>>>> Before
>> >>>>>>>> The Supreme Court
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>>
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/236679/index.do
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Amos v. Canada
>> >>>>>>>> Court (s) Database
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>> >>>>>>>> Date
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 2017-10-30
>> >>>>>>>> Neutral citation
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 2017 FCA 213
>> >>>>>>>> File numbers
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A-48-16
>> >>>>>>>> Date: 20171030
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Docket: A-48-16
>> >>>>>>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>> >>>>>>>> CORAM:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> WEBB J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> NEAR J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> GLEASON J.A.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> BETWEEN:
>> >>>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>> >>>>>>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>> >>>>>>>> (and formally Appellant)
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>> >>>>>>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>> >>>>>>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>> >>>>>>>> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
>> >>>>>>>> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
>> >>>>>>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> THE COURT
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Date: 20171030
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Docket: A-48-16
>> >>>>>>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>> >>>>>>>> CORAM:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> WEBB J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> NEAR J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> GLEASON J.A.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> BETWEEN:
>> >>>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>> >>>>>>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>> >>>>>>>> (and formally Appellant)
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>> >>>>>>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>> >>>>>>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>> >>>>>>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I. Introduction
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos)
>> >>>>>>>> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
>> >>>>>>>> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11
>> >>>>>>>> million
>> >>>>>>>> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and
>> >>>>>>>> Provincial
>> >>>>>>>> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
>> >>>>>>>> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public
>> >>>>>>>> Safety
>> >>>>>>>> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal
>> >>>>>>>> Canadian
>> >>>>>>>> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his
>> >>>>>>>> clan
>> >>>>>>>> (Claim at para. 96).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by
>> >>>>>>>> way
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court
>> >>>>>>>> (the
>> >>>>>>>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
>> >>>>>>>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
>> >>>>>>>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally
>> >>>>>>>> vexatious,
>> >>>>>>>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment
>> >>>>>>>> (the
>> >>>>>>>> Prothontary’s Order).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of
>> >>>>>>>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of
>> >>>>>>>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for
>> damages
>> >>>>>>>> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of
>> >>>>>>>> Status
>> >>>>>>>> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19,
>> >>>>>>>> 2016.
>> >>>>>>>> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
>> >>>>>>>> cross-appeal.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> II. Preliminary Matter
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
>> >>>>>>>> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on
>> >>>>>>>> March
>> >>>>>>>> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including
>> two
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this
>> >>>>>>>> appeal.
>> >>>>>>>> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he
>> >>>>>>>> believed
>> >>>>>>>> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
>> >>>>>>>> several judges but did not name those judges.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court
>> >>>>>>>> because
>> >>>>>>>> he
>> >>>>>>>> had identified the judges in various documents that had been
>> >>>>>>>> filed
>> >>>>>>>> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document
>> filed
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is
>> >>>>>>>> based
>> >>>>>>>> on
>> >>>>>>>> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C.,
>> >>>>>>>> 1985,
>> >>>>>>>> c. F-7:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or
>> >>>>>>>> her
>> >>>>>>>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
>> >>>>>>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> Appeal.
>> >>>>>>>> […]
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la
>> >>>>>>>> Cour
>> >>>>>>>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs
>> >>>>>>>> que
>> >>>>>>>> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
>> >>>>>>>> […]
>> >>>>>>>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
>> >>>>>>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges
>> de
>> >>>>>>>> la
>> >>>>>>>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs
>> >>>>>>>> que
>> >>>>>>>> les
>> >>>>>>>> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [7] However, these subsections only provide that
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and
>> vice
>> >>>>>>>> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> section.
>> >>>>>>>> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act
>> >>>>>>>> provide
>> >>>>>>>> that:
>> >>>>>>>> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court
>> >>>>>>>> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
>> >>>>>>>> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
>> >>>>>>>> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada
>> and
>> >>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>> a superior court of record having civil and criminal
>> >>>>>>>> jurisdiction.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour
>> >>>>>>>> d’appel
>> >>>>>>>> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
>> >>>>>>>> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est
>> >>>>>>>> maintenue
>> >>>>>>>> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté
>> du
>> >>>>>>>> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
>> >>>>>>>> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence
>> >>>>>>>> en
>> >>>>>>>> matière civile et pénale.
>> >>>>>>>> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court
>> >>>>>>>> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
>> >>>>>>>> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
>> >>>>>>>> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada,
>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a
>> >>>>>>>> superior
>> >>>>>>>> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section
>> >>>>>>>> de
>> >>>>>>>> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée
>> >>>>>>>> «
>> >>>>>>>> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais.
>> >>>>>>>> Elle
>> >>>>>>>> est
>> >>>>>>>> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
>> >>>>>>>> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
>> >>>>>>>> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives
>> >>>>>>>> ayant
>> >>>>>>>> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act
>> create
>> >>>>>>>> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court
>> >>>>>>>> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there
>> would
>> >>>>>>>> no
>> >>>>>>>> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as
>> >>>>>>>> required
>> >>>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>>> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in
>> >>>>>>>> relation
>> >>>>>>>> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The
>> requirement
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal
>> >>>>>>>> from
>> a
>> >>>>>>>> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only
>> >>>>>>>> documents
>> >>>>>>>> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> appeal book.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed
>> >>>>>>>> on
>> >>>>>>>> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in
>> >>>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>>> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
>> >>>>>>>> conflict in any matter related to him.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a
>> >>>>>>>> motion
>> >>>>>>>> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying
>> the
>> >>>>>>>> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the
>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court.
>> >>>>>>>> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
>> >>>>>>>> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court
>> >>>>>>>> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion
>> >>>>>>>> brought
>> >>>>>>>> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents
>> >>>>>>>> filed
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this
>> >>>>>>>> Court.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was
>> >>>>>>>> also
>> >>>>>>>> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the
>> conflict
>> >>>>>>>> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in
>> >>>>>>>> his
>> >>>>>>>> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several
>> >>>>>>>> pages
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
>> >>>>>>>> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the
>> >>>>>>>> particular
>> >>>>>>>> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by
>> >>>>>>>> including
>> >>>>>>>> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim
>> that
>> >>>>>>>> such judge had a conflict.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice
>> >>>>>>>> Webb
>> >>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of
>> >>>>>>>> Canada
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and
>> >>>>>>>> before
>> >>>>>>>> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> he
>> >>>>>>>> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a
>> >>>>>>>> partner
>> >>>>>>>> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
>> >>>>>>>> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in
>> >>>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> he
>> >>>>>>>> was a member of such firm.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
>> >>>>>>>> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice
>> >>>>>>>> Webb,
>> >>>>>>>> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
>> >>>>>>>> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr.
>> Amos
>> >>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
>> >>>>>>>> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such
>> >>>>>>>> dealings
>> >>>>>>>> were
>> >>>>>>>> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the
>> >>>>>>>> Tax
>> >>>>>>>> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings
>> >>>>>>>> between
>> >>>>>>>> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where
>> >>>>>>>> Justice
>> >>>>>>>> Webb
>> >>>>>>>> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing
>> between
>> >>>>>>>> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of
>> >>>>>>>> Stephen
>> >>>>>>>> May
>> >>>>>>>> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
>> >>>>>>>> Palmer.
>> >>>>>>>> The
>> >>>>>>>> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of
>> >>>>>>>> e-mails
>> >>>>>>>> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also
>> >>>>>>>> included
>> a
>> >>>>>>>> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is
>> >>>>>>>> John
>> >>>>>>>> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
>> >>>>>>>> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
>> >>>>>>>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
>> >>>>>>>> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
>> >>>>>>>> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice
>> >>>>>>>> Webb
>> >>>>>>>> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In
>> >>>>>>>> Wewaykum
>> >>>>>>>> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2
>> >>>>>>>> S.C.R.
>> >>>>>>>> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
>> >>>>>>>> apprehension of bias:
>> >>>>>>>> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
>> >>>>>>>> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by
>> >>>>>>>> de
>> >>>>>>>> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National
>> Energy
>> >>>>>>>> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> reasonable apprehension of bias:
>> >>>>>>>> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
>> >>>>>>>> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
>> >>>>>>>> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the
>> >>>>>>>> words
>> >>>>>>>> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed
>> >>>>>>>> person,
>> >>>>>>>> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having
>> >>>>>>>> thought
>> >>>>>>>> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more
>> >>>>>>>> likely
>> >>>>>>>> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
>> >>>>>>>> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
>> >>>>>>>> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and
>> >>>>>>>> having
>> >>>>>>>> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’
>> >>>>>>>> allegations
>> >>>>>>>> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court
>> >>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges
>> >>>>>>>> will
>> >>>>>>>> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
>> >>>>>>>> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias
>> >>>>>>>> (Collins
>> >>>>>>>> v.
>> >>>>>>>> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins].
>> See
>> >>>>>>>> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151
>> >>>>>>>> D.L.R.
>> >>>>>>>> (4th) 193).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd.
>> >>>>>>>> v.
>> >>>>>>>> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the
>> >>>>>>>> Supreme
>> >>>>>>>> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
>> >>>>>>>> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
>> >>>>>>>> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The
>> >>>>>>>> Ontario
>> >>>>>>>> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified
>> >>>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he
>> >>>>>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the
>> >>>>>>>> rules
>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
>> >>>>>>>> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case
>> >>>>>>>> over
>> >>>>>>>> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no
>> >>>>>>>> involvement,
>> >>>>>>>> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson
>> been
>> >>>>>>>> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his
>> >>>>>>>> appointment
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him
>> >>>>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>>> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a
>> >>>>>>>> trial
>> >>>>>>>> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered
>> >>>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v.
>> >>>>>>>> Bayfield
>> >>>>>>>> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58,
>> that
>> >>>>>>>> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a
>> >>>>>>>> judge
>> >>>>>>>> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be
>> >>>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>>> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
>> >>>>>>>> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
>> >>>>>>>> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of
>> >>>>>>>> disqualification
>> >>>>>>>> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations
>> of
>> >>>>>>>> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's
>> >>>>>>>> previous
>> >>>>>>>> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by
>> >>>>>>>> Sopinka
>> >>>>>>>> J.
>> >>>>>>>> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249
>> (S.C.C.),
>> >>>>>>>> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a
>> >>>>>>>> disqualifying
>> >>>>>>>> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a
>> >>>>>>>> conclusory
>> >>>>>>>> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
>> >>>>>>>> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial
>> >>>>>>>> judge.
>> >>>>>>>> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case
>> and
>> >>>>>>>> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face
>> >>>>>>>> value
>> >>>>>>>> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para.
>> 19.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular
>> >>>>>>>> circumstances
>> >>>>>>>> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
>> >>>>>>>> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view,
>> >>>>>>>> there
>> >>>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>>> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision
>> not
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties
>> >>>>>>>> accept,
>> >>>>>>>> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm
>> and
>> >>>>>>>> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long
>> >>>>>>>> passage
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
>> >>>>>>>> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must
>> >>>>>>>> inform
>> >>>>>>>> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That
>> factor
>> >>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
>> >>>>>>>> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the
>> >>>>>>>> decision-making,
>> >>>>>>>> or that occurred within a short time prior to the
>> >>>>>>>> decision-making.
>> >>>>>>>> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The
>> Wilson
>> >>>>>>>> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J.
>> >>>>>>>> had
>> >>>>>>>> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship
>> with
>> >>>>>>>> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
>> >>>>>>>> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal
>> fairly
>> >>>>>>>> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally
>> >>>>>>>> because
>> >>>>>>>> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of
>> >>>>>>>> involvement
>> >>>>>>>> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had
>> >>>>>>>> carriage.
>> >>>>>>>> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere
>> >>>>>>>> fact
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from
>> over
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he
>> >>>>>>>> would
>> >>>>>>>> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's
>> former
>> >>>>>>>> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would
>> >>>>>>>> throw
>> >>>>>>>> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and
>> >>>>>>>> favour
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six
>> >>>>>>>> years
>> >>>>>>>> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case
>> involving
>> >>>>>>>> events from over a decade ago.
>> >>>>>>>> (emphasis added)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
>> >>>>>>>> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
>> >>>>>>>> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos
>> made
>> >>>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
>> >>>>>>>> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough
>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos
>> >>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would
>> >>>>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when
>> he
>> >>>>>>>> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
>> >>>>>>>> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos
>> >>>>>>>> had
>> >>>>>>>> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself
>> >>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
>> >>>>>>>> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer
>> >>>>>>>> would
>> >>>>>>>> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in
>> >>>>>>>> Justice
>> >>>>>>>> Webb hearing this appeal.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man.
>> >>>>>>>> R.
>> >>>>>>>> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
>> >>>>>>>> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a
>> member
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no
>> >>>>>>>> involvement
>> >>>>>>>> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue,
>> [2000]
>> >>>>>>>> 4
>> >>>>>>>> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
>> >>>>>>>> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person
>> who
>> >>>>>>>> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished
>> >>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files
>> >>>>>>>> involving
>> >>>>>>>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson
>> >>>>>>>> Law.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD.
>> He
>> >>>>>>>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a
>> >>>>>>>> “true
>> >>>>>>>> copy
>> >>>>>>>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this
>> >>>>>>>> CD.
>> >>>>>>>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the
>> >>>>>>>> CD
>> >>>>>>>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement
>> >>>>>>>> authorities
>> >>>>>>>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are
>> >>>>>>>> willing
>> >>>>>>>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an
>> >>>>>>>> “American
>> >>>>>>>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American
>> law
>> >>>>>>>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests,
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
>> >>>>>>>> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason
>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>> him
>> >>>>>>>> to recuse himself.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past
>> >>>>>>>> professional
>> >>>>>>>> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in
>> >>>>>>>> deciding
>> >>>>>>>> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
>> >>>>>>>> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for
>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he
>> >>>>>>>> alleges
>> >>>>>>>> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he
>> >>>>>>>> wrote
>> >>>>>>>> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that
>> time,
>> >>>>>>>> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law
>> firm
>> >>>>>>>> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and
>> >>>>>>>> angry,
>> >>>>>>>> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me
>> >>>>>>>> suing
>> >>>>>>>> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the
>> >>>>>>>> letter
>> >>>>>>>> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by
>> >>>>>>>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no
>> reason
>> >>>>>>>> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question
>> >>>>>>>> does
>> >>>>>>>> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> III. Issue
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did
>> the
>> >>>>>>>> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the
>> >>>>>>>> Claim
>> >>>>>>>> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that
>> >>>>>>>> Mr.
>> >>>>>>>> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
>> >>>>>>>> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> IV. Analysis
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A. Standard of Review
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
>> >>>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of
>> >>>>>>>> review
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and
>> >>>>>>>> decisions
>> >>>>>>>> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in
>> >>>>>>>> Hospira
>> >>>>>>>> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA
>> >>>>>>>> 215,
>> >>>>>>>> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
>> >>>>>>>> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2
>> >>>>>>>> S.C.R.
>> >>>>>>>> 235
>> >>>>>>>> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made
>> >>>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of
>> the
>> >>>>>>>> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal
>> if
>> >>>>>>>> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and
>> >>>>>>>> overriding
>> >>>>>>>> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed
>> >>>>>>>> fact
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only
>> >>>>>>>> interfere
>> >>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary
>> >>>>>>>> order
>> >>>>>>>> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding
>> >>>>>>>> error
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
>> >>>>>>>> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
>> >>>>>>>> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This
>> >>>>>>>> Court
>> >>>>>>>> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the
>> >>>>>>>> Judge
>> >>>>>>>> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing
>> to
>> >>>>>>>> interfere.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
>> >>>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
>> >>>>>>>> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for
>> >>>>>>>> striking
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the
>> Plaintiff
>> >>>>>>>> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but
>> >>>>>>>> four
>> >>>>>>>> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> 2006
>> >>>>>>>> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction
>> of
>> >>>>>>>> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in
>> right
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the
>> >>>>>>>> Province
>> >>>>>>>> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident
>> >>>>>>>> alleged
>> >>>>>>>> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this
>> >>>>>>>> Court.
>> >>>>>>>> (…)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
>> >>>>>>>> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the
>> >>>>>>>> location
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
>> >>>>>>>> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible
>> to
>> >>>>>>>> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to
>> >>>>>>>> advance.
>> >>>>>>>> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the
>> >>>>>>>> Defendant
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action.
>> >>>>>>>> At
>> >>>>>>>> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
>> >>>>>>>> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
>> >>>>>>>> [footnotes omitted].
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the
>> >>>>>>>> Claim
>> >>>>>>>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge
>> >>>>>>>> noted
>> >>>>>>>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
>> >>>>>>>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the
>> >>>>>>>> actors
>> >>>>>>>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
>> >>>>>>>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In
>> >>>>>>>> considering
>> >>>>>>>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
>> >>>>>>>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
>> >>>>>>>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
>> >>>>>>>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment
>> >>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>> para. 27).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
>> >>>>>>>> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v.
>> >>>>>>>> Canada,
>> >>>>>>>> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse,
>> >>>>>>>> 2003
>> >>>>>>>> SCC
>> >>>>>>>> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
>> >>>>>>>> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
>> >>>>>>>> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and
>> >>>>>>>> unlawful
>> >>>>>>>> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
>> >>>>>>>> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the
>> >>>>>>>> plaintiff;
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the
>> >>>>>>>> public
>> >>>>>>>> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
>> >>>>>>>> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
>> >>>>>>>> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed
>> >>>>>>>> sufficient
>> >>>>>>>> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance
>> >>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
>> >>>>>>>> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
>> >>>>>>>> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of
>> >>>>>>>> pleadings
>> >>>>>>>> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184,
>> 321
>> >>>>>>>> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
>> >>>>>>>> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
>> >>>>>>>> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did
>> >>>>>>>> steal”.
>> >>>>>>>> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is
>> >>>>>>>> called
>> >>>>>>>> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making
>> >>>>>>>> bald,
>> >>>>>>>> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an
>> >>>>>>>> abuse
>> >>>>>>>> of process…
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public
>> >>>>>>>> office
>> >>>>>>>> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in
>> carrying
>> >>>>>>>> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the
>> >>>>>>>> public
>> >>>>>>>> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or
>> her
>> >>>>>>>> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
>> >>>>>>>> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
>> >>>>>>>> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of
>> >>>>>>>> mind
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
>> >>>>>>>> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
>> >>>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge
>> >>>>>>>> interfered
>> >>>>>>>> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
>> >>>>>>>> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material
>> >>>>>>>> facts
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which
>> >>>>>>>> addresses
>> >>>>>>>> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP
>> officer
>> >>>>>>>> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
>> >>>>>>>> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in
>> >>>>>>>> bad
>> >>>>>>>> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was
>> >>>>>>>> barred
>> >>>>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>>> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious
>> >>>>>>>> reasons,
>> >>>>>>>> these allegations are not particularized and are directed
>> >>>>>>>> against
>> >>>>>>>> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
>> Legislative
>> >>>>>>>> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As
>> >>>>>>>> such,
>> >>>>>>>> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> RCMP
>> >>>>>>>> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was
>> >>>>>>>> capable
>> >>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>> supporting a cause of action.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of
>> >>>>>>>> bare
>> >>>>>>>> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
>> >>>>>>>> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the
>> >>>>>>>> Federal
>> >>>>>>>> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety.
>> >>>>>>>> Further,
>> >>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to
>> amend.
>> >>>>>>>> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such
>> >>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> V. Conclusion
>> >>>>>>>> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the
>> >>>>>>>> Crown’s
>> >>>>>>>> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court
>> Judgment,
>> >>>>>>>> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order,
>> >>>>>>>> dated
>> >>>>>>>> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
>> >>>>>>>> without leave to amend.
>> >>>>>>>> "Wyman W. Webb"
>> >>>>>>>> J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> "David G. Near"
>> >>>>>>>> J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
>> >>>>>>>> J.A.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
>> >>>>>>>> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT
>> >>>>>>>> DATED
>> >>>>>>>> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
>> >>>>>>>> DOCKET:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> A-48-16
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> PLACE OF HEARING:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Fredericton,
>> >>>>>>>> New Brunswick
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> DATE OF HEARING:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> May 24, 2017
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> WEBB J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> NEAR J.A.
>> >>>>>>>> GLEASON J.A.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> DATED:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> October 30, 2017
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> APPEARANCES:
>> >>>>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
>> >>>>>>>> (on his own behalf)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Jan Jensen
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
>> >>>>>>>> Nathalie G. Drouin
>> >>>>>>>> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> >>>>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
>> >>>>> From: "David Amos"
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>> >>>>> Subject: Now everybody and his dog knows TJ Burke and his cop
>> >>>>> buddies
>> >>>>> allegations against me are false and you had the proof all along EH
>> >>>>> Chucky?
>> >>>>> To:
oldmaison@yahoo.com,
nbombud@gnb.ca,
dan.bussieres@gnb.ca,
>> >>>>>
jacques_poitras@cbc.ca,
news@dailygleaner.com,
>> >>>>>
kcarmichael@bloomberg.net,
advocacycollective@yahoo.com,
>> >>>>>
Easter.W@parl.gc.ca,
Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>>
cityadmin@fredericton.ca
>> ,
>> >>>>>
info@gg.ca,
bmosher@mosherchedore.ca,
rchedore@mosherchedore.ca,
>> >>>>>
police@fredericton.ca,
chebert@thestar.ca,
Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>>
Stronach.B@parl.gc.ca,
Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>>
alltrue@nl.rogers.com,
>> >>>>>
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca,
Layton.J@parl.gc.ca,
Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca,
>> >>>>>
Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
>> >>>>> CC:
dgleg@nb.aibn.com,
brad.woodside@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
whalen@fredericton.ca,
david.kelly@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
cathy.maclaggan@fredericton.ca,
stephen.kelly@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
tom.jellinek@fredericton.ca,
scott.mcconaghy@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
marilyn.kerton@fredericton.ca,
walter.brown@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
norah.davidson@fredericton.ca,
mike.obrien@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
bruce.grandy@fredericton.ca,
dan.keenan@fredericton.ca,
>> >>>>>
jeff.mockler@gnb.ca,
mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca,
>> >>>>>
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.gc.ca,
jlmockler@mpor.ca,
>> >>>>>
scotta@parl.gc.ca,
michael.bray@gnb.ca,
jack.e.mackay@gnb.ca
>> >>>>>
>>
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/05/24/nb-burkethreat.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/article.php?articleID=149018
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>>
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/05/tj-burke-walking-around-with-rcmp.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>>
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/06/fapo-has-meeting-about-panhanding.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>>
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/05/hats-off-to-cbc-reporter-jacques.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
http://maritimes.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=9856
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Methinks your liberal pals just made a major faux pas N'est Pas?
>> >>>>> Scroll down Frenchie and go down?.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Threat against Burke taken seriously
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> By STEPHEN LLEWELLYN
>> >>>>>
dgleg@nb.aibn.com
>> >>>>> Published Thursday May 24th, 2007
>> >>>>> Appeared on page A1
>> >>>>> An RCMP security detail has been guarding Justice Minister and
>> >>>>> Attorney General T.J. Burke because of threats made against him
>> >>>>> recently.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke, the Liberal MLA for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaaksis, wouldn't
>> >>>>> explain the nature of the threats.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I have had a particular individual or individuals who have made
>> >>>>> specific overtures about causing harm towards me," he told
>> >>>>> reporters
>> >>>>> Wednesday.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "The RCMP has provided security to me recently by accompanying me
>> >>>>> to
>> a
>> >>>>> couple of public functions where the individual is known to reside
>> >>>>> or
>> >>>>> have family members in the area," said Burke. "It is nice to have
>> some
>> >>>>> added protection and that added comfort."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The RCMP provides protection to the premier and MLAs with its VIP
>> >>>>> security
>> >>>>> unit.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke didn't say when the threat was made but it's believed to have
>> >>>>> been in recent weeks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "When a threat is posed to you and it is a credible threat, you
>> >>>>> have
>> >>>>> to be cautious about where you go and who you are around," he said.
>> >>>>> "But again, I am more concerned about my family as opposed to my
>> >>>>> own
>> >>>>> personal safety."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said he doesn't feel any differently and he has not changed
>> >>>>> his
>> >>>>> pattern of activity.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "It doesn't bother me one bit," he said. "It makes my wife feel
>> >>>>> awful
>> >>>>> nervous."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke served in an elite American military unit before becoming a
>> >>>>> lawyer and going into politics in New Brunswick.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "(I) have taken my own precautions and what I have to do to ensure
>> >>>>> my
>> >>>>> family's safety," he said. "I am a very cautious person in general
>> due
>> >>>>> to my background and training.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I am comfortable with defending myself or my family if it ever had
>> to
>> >>>>> happen."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said it is not uncommon for politicians to have security
>> >>>>> concerns.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "We do live unfortunately in an age and in a society now where
>> threats
>> >>>>> have to be taken pretty seriously," he said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Since the terrorism attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001,
>> >>>>> security in New Brunswick has been
>> >>>>> beefed up.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Metal detectors were recently installed in the legislature and all
>> >>>>> visitors are screened.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The position of attorney general is often referred to as the
>> >>>>> province's "top cop."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said sometimes people do not differentiate between his role
>> >>>>> as
>> >>>>> the manager of the justice system and the individual who actually
>> >>>>> prosecutes them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "With the job sometimes comes threats," he said. "I have had
>> >>>>> numerous
>> >>>>> threats since Day 1 in office."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Burke said he hopes his First Nations heritage has nothing to do
>> >>>>> with
>> >>>>> it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I think it is more of an issue where people get fixated on a
>> >>>>> matter
>> >>>>> and they believe you are personally responsible for assigning them
>> >>>>> their punishment or their sanction," he said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Is the threat from someone who was recently incarcerated?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I probably shouldn't answer that," he replied.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Reporters asked when the threat would be over.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I don't think a threat ever passes once it has been made," said
>> >>>>> Burke. "You have to consider the credibility of the source."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Bruce Fitch, former justice minister in the Conservative
>> >>>>> government,
>> >>>>> said "every now and again there would be e-mails that were not
>> >>>>> complimentary."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "I did have a meeting with the RCMP who are in charge of the
>> >>>>> security
>> >>>>> of the MLAs and ministers," said Fitch.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "They look at each and every situation."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Fitch said he never had bodyguards assigned to him although former
>> >>>>> premier Bernard Lord and former health minister Elvy Robichaud did
>> >>>>> have extra security staff assigned on occasion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> He said if any MLA felt threatened, he or she would discuss it with
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> RCMP.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
http://www.archive.org/details/SecTreasuryDeptEtc
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Small World EH Chucky Leblanc?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Lafleur, Lou"
lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From: "Lafleur, Lou"
lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
>> >>>>> To: "'
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com'"
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
>> >>>>> "Lafleur, Lou"
lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
>> >>>>> Subject: Fredericton Police Force
>> >>>>> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Amos
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My Name is Lou LaFleur and I am a Detective with the Fredericton
>> >>>>> Police Major Crime Unit. I would like to talk to you regarding
>> >>>>> files
>> >>>>> that I am investigating and that you are alleged to have
>> >>>>> involvement
>> >>>>> in.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Please call me at your earliest convenience and leave a message and
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> phone number on my secure and confidential line if I am not in my
>> >>>>> office.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> yours truly,
>> >>>>> Cpl. Lou LaFleur
>> >>>>> Fredericton Police Force
>> >>>>> 311 Queen St.
>> >>>>> Fredericton, NB
>> >>>>> 506-460-2332
>> >>>>> ______________________________
__
>> >>>>> This electronic mail, including any attachments, is confidential
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may be
>> >>>>> privileged.
>> >>>>> Any unauthorized distribution, copying, disclosure or review is
>> >>>>> prohibited. Neither communication over the Internet nor disclosure
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> anyone other than the intended recipient constitutes waiver of
>> >>>>> privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>> >>>>> immediately
>> >>>>> notify the sender and then delete this communication and any
>> >>>>> attachments from your computer system and records without saving or
>> >>>>> forwarding it. Thank you.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
Alberta
Premier Danielle Smith, left, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, centre,
Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Quebec Premier François Legault, not
pictured, have written to Prime Minister Mark Carney saying they want
more of a role in how the federal government appoints judges in their
respective provinces. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)
Justice minister open to more provincial consultation on judicial appointments, but not 'a sea change'
Justice minister says judge appointment process working but welcomes provinces 'to take part'
Minister shares how private veterinary service could work in N.B.
Dr.
Trevor Lawson is a large-animal veterinarian at Fundy Veterinarians in
the Truro area of Nova Scotia. He is compensated for the travel it takes
to visit rural farms in the province. (Submitted by Trevor Lawson) 
Dr.
Paule-Marie Mather is a veterinarian and an instructor at Oulton
College. Her dream was to work on farms but resorted to a small-animal
practice. (Submitted by Paule-Marie Mather)
‘It came out of the blue’: Veterinarians respond to news of services coming to an end 
Dr.
Mary-Ellen Themens, left, is the registrar for the New Brunswick
Veterinary Medical Association. Some of the provincial veterinarians
that are a part of her association are considering leaving the province
following job cuts. (Submitted by Mary-Ellen Themens) 
Farmers dismayed by decision to cut province’s public veterinarian service
Burton
beef farmer Malcolm Gilbert thinks a plan to get rid of large-animal
veterinary services in the province is a mistake for the Holt
government. (Shane Fowler/CBC)
Tim
Clancy operates Lily’s Place Animal Sanctuary, which is a charity that
takes care of a variety of animals like sheep, goats and chickens. (Submitted by Tim Clancy) 
Jessica
Frenette, the owner of Bird's Hill Farms in Woodstock, says foodies and
chefs around the Maritimes are looking for beef from her Wagyu cows,
but trade barriers make it difficult to ship outside the province. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
Bird's Hill Farm is the biggest producer of full-blood Japanese Wagyu beef in the region. (Michael Heenan/CBC)
She’s got beef: Barriers block N.B. farm’s sales outside province
Wagyu
is a distinctive kind of beef with a large amount of intramuscular fat,
making it a less dense meat with a richer, buttery flavour that fetches
high prices. (Michael Heenan/CBC)
Wagyu is a kind of beef with a large amount of intramuscular fat that
give them a special flavour prized by foodies and chefs. (Jacques
Poitras/CBC)
Bird's
Hill Farms got into Wagyu beef nearly 10 years ago. 'It was supposed to
be a small, little operation,' said Jessica Frenette. (Mike Heenan/CBC)
Nathalie
Drouin has been deputy clerk of the Privy Council since August 2021 and
will retain that title as she becomes the prime minister's new national
security adviser. (
34 Comments