Crowe v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2008) 382 N.R. 50 (FCA)

• Judge: Nadon, Sexton and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: September 17, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2008), 382 N.R. 50 (FCA);2008 FCA 298

Crowe v. Can. (A.G.) (2008), 382 N.R. 50 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. NO.006

Ron Crowe (appellant) v. The Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin, The Honourable Justice Charron, The Honourable Justice Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada, The Honourable Chief Justice of Ontario Roy McMurtry, The Honourable Justice Feldman, The Honourable Justice Lang of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, The Honourable Madam Justice Janet Wilson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, The Honourable Richard Scott, Chief Justice of Manitoba and Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council, (in their judicial and private capacities) The Canadian Judicial Council, The Maritime Life Assurance Company, now known as The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, Manulife Financial, Dominic D'Alessandro, Arthur R. Sawchuk, John Cassaday, Lino J. Celeste, Gail Cook-Bennett, Thomas P. D'Aquino, Richard B. de Wolfe, Robert E. Dineen Jr., Pierre Y. Ducros, Allister P. Graham, Thomas E. Kierans, Lorna R Marsden, Hugh W. Sloan Jr., Gordon G. Thiessen (in their corporate and private capacities), Paolo Grego (respondents)

(A-495-07; A-509-07; A-549-07; A-550-07; 2008 FCA 298)

Indexed As: Crowe v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Sexton and Pelletier, JJ.A.

October 7, 2008.

Summary:

Crowe became disabled. He claimed disability benefits from the underwriters (Manulife). He alleged that Manulife failed, refused or neglected to pay him and so he retained Greco to take action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. At a mandatory mediation session, he signed Minutes of Settlement, which called upon him to sign a release. He alleged that release was contrary to what had been agreed at the mediation. Manulife moved for summary judgment. Crowe moved for dismissal of Manulife's motion. Wilson, J., ordered that the motions "... proceed by way of Summary Trial ...". Having not given his consent to having the issue decided on simplified procedures, Crowe asserted that Wilson, J., effectively assumed that a settlement existed and shielded Manulife from any further litigation. The Ontario Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. Crowe sued his counsel (Greco), Manulife, Wilson, J., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that they were, among other things, knowingly complicit in the unjust enrichment of Manulife and maliciously and without cause removed his substantive right to be heard. In the same way, the Canadian Judicial Council conspired by refusing to act upon Crowe's complaint against these judges. Crowe also sued the Crown in right of Canada for failing to protect Crowe's constitutional rights. Crowe sought exemplary, punitive and special damages in the amount of $5 billion dollars. Greco, Manulife and the Attorney General moved for dismissal of the action against them.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 319 F.T.R. 86, allowed the motions. Wilson, J., the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council moved for dismissal of the action against them.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 319 F.T.R. 203, allowed the motions. Crowe appealed both decisions.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Courts - Topic 626

Judges - Liabilities - General - [See first Practice - Topic 2241 ].

Courts - Topic 4016

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - General - [See both Practice - Topic 2241 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See both Practice - Topic 2241 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Crowe became disabled - He claimed disability benefits from the underwriters (Manulife) - He alleged that Manulife failed, refused or neglected to pay him and so he retained Greco to take action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - At a mandatory mediation session, he signed Minutes of Settlement, which called upon him to sign a release - He alleged that release was contrary to what had been agreed at the mediation - Manulife moved for summary judgment - Crowe moved for dismissal of Manulife's motion - Wilson, J., ordered that the motions "... proceed by way of Summary Trial ..." - Having not given his consent to having the issue decided on simplified procedures, Crowe asserted that Wilson, J., effectively assumed that a settlement existed and shielded Manulife from any further litigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal - Crowe sued, among others, Wilson, J., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that they were, among other things, knowingly complicit in the unjust enrichment of Manulife and maliciously and without cause removed his substantive right to be heard - In the same way, the Canadian Judicial Council conspired by refusing to act upon Crowe's complaint against these judges - The motions judge struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action as against the Council - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The Council was a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" and as such, its decisions were subject to the judicial review - No action lay against a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" with respect to an action taken under the authority of a federal law unless the decision had first been shown to be unlawful in an application for judicial review - Given that the Council's decision had not been attacked by way of judicial review,  Crowe's action against the Council was premature; it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and had to be dismissed - See paragraph 21.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Crowe became disabled - He claimed disability benefits from the underwriters (Manulife) - He alleged that Manulife failed, refused or neglected to pay him and so he retained Greco to take action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - At a mandatory mediation session, he signed Minutes of Settlement, which called upon him to sign a release - He alleged that release was contrary to what had been agreed at the mediation - Manulife moved for summary judgment - Crowe moved for dismissal of Manulife's motion - Wilson, J., ordered that the motions "... proceed by way of Summary Trial ..." - Having not given his consent to having the issue decided on simplified procedures, Crowe asserted that Wilson, J., effectively assumed that a settlement existed and shielded Manulife from any further litigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal - Crowe sued his counsel (Greco), Manulife, Wilson, J., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that they were, among other things, knowingly complicit in the unjust enrichment of Manulife and maliciously and without cause removed his substantive right to be heard - Crowe also sued the Crown in right of Canada for failing to protect Crowe's constitutional rights - Crowe sought exemplary, punitive and special damages in the amount of $5 billion dollars - The motions judge struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action as against the Crown - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The Crown was not liable in tort in common law - In order for the Crown to be liable, two conditions had to be met: a) someone else had to be liable in tort; and b) that someone else had to be a Crown servant - Irrespective of the state of the law regarding judicial immunity, judges were not servants of the Crown - Even if the astounding allegations in the statement of claim were true, the action was dismissed on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action - See paragraphs 22 to 24.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Crowe became disabled - He claimed disability benefits from the underwriters (Manulife) - He alleged that Manulife failed, refused or neglected to pay him and so he retained Greco to take action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - At a mandatory mediation session, he signed Minutes of Settlement, which called upon him to sign a release - He alleged that release was contrary to what had been agreed at the mediation - Manulife moved for summary judgment - Crowe moved for dismissal of Manulife's motion - Wilson, J., ordered that the motions "... proceed by way of Summary Trial ..." - Having not given his consent to having the issue decided on simplified procedures, Crowe asserted that Wilson, J., effectively assumed that a settlement existed and shielded Manulife from any further litigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal - Crowe sued his counsel (Greco), Manulife, Wilson, J., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that they were, among other things, knowingly complicit in the unjust enrichment of Manulife and maliciously and without cause removed his substantive right to be heard - Crowe also sued the Crown in right of Canada for failing to protect Crowe's constitutional rights - Crowe sought exemplary, punitive and special damages in the amount of $5 billion dollars - The motions judge struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action as against the Crown - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The court rejected Crowe's argument that the Crown was liable under s. 3(b)(ii) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act - Crowe had argued that his right to due process and a fair trial was an incorporeal right which was included in the definition of property at s. 2(1) of the Federal Courts Act - Crowe's procedural and constitutional rights were not property rights, even though they were intangible and, in that sense only, incorporeal - As a result, they did not give rise to any claim against the Crown - See paragraph 25.

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction (incl. alternative remedy) - Crowe became disabled - He claimed disability benefits from the underwriters (Manulife) - He alleged that Manulife failed, refused or neglected to pay him and so he retained Greco to take action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - At a mandatory mediation session, he signed Minutes of Settlement, which called upon him to sign a release - He alleged that release was contrary to what had been agreed at the mediation - Manulife moved for summary judgment - Crowe moved for dismissal of Manulife's motion - Wilson, J., ordered that the motions "... proceed by way of Summary Trial ..." - Having not given his consent to having the issue decided on simplified procedures, Crowe asserted that Wilson, J., effectively assumed that a settlement existed and shielded Manulife from any further litigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal - Crowe sued, among others, Wilson, J., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that they were, among other things, knowingly complicit in the unjust enrichment of Manulife and maliciously and without cause removed his substantive right to be heard - The motions judge struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action as against all the judges - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The Federal Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim as directed against the judges - There had been no statutory grant to the Federal Court of jurisdiction over an action for damages against Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada judges, and the existing body of federal law was not essential or even relevant to the disposition of the case - Nothing in the Judges Act or any other act created civil liability for acts done by judges in their capacity as judges - As a result, the question of judicial immunity simply did not arise - See paragraph 18.

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction (incl. alternative remedy) - Crowe became disabled - He claimed disability benefits from the underwriters (Manulife) - He alleged that Manulife failed, refused or neglected to pay him and so he retained Greco to take action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - At a mandatory mediation session, he signed Minutes of Settlement, which called upon him to sign a release - He alleged that release was contrary to what had been agreed at the mediation - Manulife moved for summary judgment - Crowe moved for dismissal of Manulife's motion - Wilson, J., ordered that the motions "... proceed by way of Summary Trial ..." - Having not given his consent to having the issue decided on simplified procedures, Crowe asserted that Wilson, J., effectively assumed that a settlement existed and shielded Manulife from any further litigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal - Crowe sued his counsel (Greco), Manulife, Wilson, J., the judges of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that they were, among other things, knowingly complicit in the unjust enrichment of Manulife and maliciously and without cause removed his substantive right to be heard - Crowe sought exemplary, punitive and special damages in the amount of $5 billion dollars - The motions judge struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action as against Greco and Manulife - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter - The claim against Manulife related to an insurance policy - Insurance was a matter of property and civil rights in the province - As regards to the claim against Greco, he had been authorized to practice law by the Law Society of Upper Canada and was acting in an Ontario action - The claim did not relate to any matter to which Parliament could legislate - Consequently, Crowe failed to establish that the cause of action fell within a federal legislative class of subject - See paragraph 19.

Practice - Topic 5384

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Circumstances when granted - [See second, third and fourth Practice - Topic 2230 and both Practice - Topic 2241 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grenier v. Canada (2005), 344 N.R. 102; 2005 FCA 348, refd to. [para. 9].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 17].

Stephens Estate v. Minister of National Revenue, Wilkie, Morrison, Smith, Statham (Deputy Sheriff, County of Oxford), Constable Ross and Davidson (1982), 40 N.R. 620 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Ron Crowe, on his own behalf;

Janice Cheney and Maria McQuaid, for the respondent, the Honourable Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin et al.;

Michael C. Birley and Anna Marie Musson, for the respondent, Maritime Life Assurance Company et al.;

Martin W. Mason, for the respondent, the Honourable Chief Justice of Ontario Roy McMurtry et al.;

Sandi J. Smith, for the respondent, Paolo Greco;

Derek C. Allen, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Ron Crowe, Ajax, Ontario, on his own behalf;

Legal Counsel, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Honourable Chief Justice of Canada Beverly McLachlin et al.;

Miller Thomson LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Maritime Life Assurance Company et al.;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Honourable Chief Justice of Ontario Roy McMurtry et al.;

Gilbert, Wright & Kirby LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Paolo Greco;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada.

These appeals were heard on September 17, 2008, at Toronto, Ontario, by Nadon, Sexton and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Pelletier, J.A., at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 7, 2008.