Hyra v. Manitoba et al., 2015 MBCA 55

• Judge: Cameron, Burnett and Mainella, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: November 28, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBCA 55;(2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA)

Hyra v. Man. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA);

      638 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.006

Jason Hyra (plaintiff/appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of The Province Of Manitoba and David Rampersad (defendants/respondents)

(AI 14-30-08156; 2015 MBCA 55)

Indexed As: Hyra v. Manitoba et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Cameron, Burnett and Mainella, JJ.A.

May 29, 2015.

Summary:

Hyra was convicted of criminal harassment. He sued the Province of Manitoba and the Crown Attorney who prosecuted the charge against him (the defendants), alleging negligence, violations of the Charter, discrimination, violation of the Professional Code of Conduct, intimidation and harassment. He sought damages of $12,000,000 plus an additional $100,000 for each month after service of the statement of claim. The defendants moved to strike out the statement of claim on the grounds that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pursuant to Queen's Bench Rule 25.11(b), an abuse of process of the court pursuant to rule 25.11(c), and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action pursuant to rule 25.11(d).

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 290 Man.R.(2d) 198, struck all of Hyra's claims as not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, save for negligence. The defendants appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 302 Man.R.(2d) 175, allowed the appeal and struck the claim in negligence. Hyra appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1808

The prosecutor - Duty of disclosure - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - Hyra was convicted of criminal harassment - He sued the Province of Manitoba and the Crown Attorney who prosecuted the charge against him (the defendants), alleging negligence, violations of the Charter, discrimination, violation of the Professional Code of Conduct, intimidation and harassment - He sought damages of $12,000,000 plus an additional $100,000 for each month after service of the statement of claim - The defendants moved to strike out the statement of claim on the grounds that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pursuant to Queen's Bench Rule 25.11(b), an abuse of process of the court pursuant to rule 25.11(c), and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action pursuant to rule 25.11(d) - A Master struck all of Hyra's claims as not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, save for negligence - The defendants appealed - The motion judge allowed the appeal and struck the claim in negligence - The claim was an abuse of process of the court - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The court applied Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. (SCC 2015), holding that (1) there was no cause of action in negligence based on an allegation of non-disclosure by a Crown prosecutor in a criminal proceeding; (2) Hyra's claim did not meet the heightened civil liability threshold for cases of wrongful disclosure established in Henry; and (3) there was no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that the action was an abuse of process.

Cases Noticed:

Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. (2015), 470 N.R. 200; 369 B.C.A.C. 47; 634 W.A.C. 47; 2015 SCC 24, appld. [para. 1].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 13].

Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339; 395 N.R. 115; 337 Sask.R. 260; 464 W.A.C. 260; 2009 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 13].

Driskell v. Dangerfield et al. (2007), 217 Man.R.(2d) 124; 2007 MBQB 142, revd. in part (2008), 228 Man.R.(2d) 116; 427 W.A.C. 116; 2008 MBCA 60, refd to. [para. 14].

Law Society of Manitoba v. Mackinnon (2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 223; 600 W.A.C. 223; 2014 MBCA 28, refd to. [para. 19].

Reynen v. Canada et al. (1995), 184 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Thompson v. Ontario et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Gilbert v. Gilkinson et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 188 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 355 N.R. 398; 223 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 186 N.R. 77; 134 Sask.R. 320; 101 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Folland et al. v. Ontario et al. (2003), 170 O.A.C. 17; 64 O.R.(3d) 89 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2003), 325 N.R. 391; 194 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 26].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 28].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 28].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 28].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 30].

Elguzouli-Daf v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [1995] Q.B. 335 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Gray v. Crown Prosecution Service, [2010] EWHC 2144 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Grant v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority et al. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 67; 638 W.A.C. 67; 2015 MBCA 44, refd to. [para. 39].

Wiche v. Ontario et al., [2001] O.T.C. 359 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Girimonte (F.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. McAnespie (R.B.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 501; 162 N.R. 155; 68 O.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Bramwell (H.L.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1126; 204 N.R. 373; 83 B.C.A.C. 81; 136 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Wilson (H.B.) (1994), 68 O.A.C. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sweeney (D.J.) (2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 35; 310 W.A.C. 35; 2003 MBCA 127, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McNeil (L.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66; 383 N.R. 1; 246 O.A.C. 154; 2009 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 46].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Society of Manitoba, Code of Professional Conduct (2011), generally [para. 7].

Counsel:

J. Hyra, on his own behalf;

D.G. Guénette and T.B. Dobson, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 28, 2014, by Cameron, Burnett and Mainella, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Mainella, J.A., on May 29, 2015.