LeBar v. Canada, (1988) 90 N.R. 5 (FCA)

• Judge: Urie, Mahoney, MacGuigan, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 12, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 90 N.R. 5 (FCA)

LeBar v. Can. (1988), 90 N.R. 5 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant/defendant) v. Charles Lawrence LeBar (respondent/plaintiff)

(A-44-87)

Indexed As: LeBar v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Urie, Mahoney, MacGuigan, JJ.

October 27, 1988.

Summary:

LeBar was serving sentences for robbery and escaping lawful custody. During his incarceration the Federal Court of Appeal issued a declaratory decision in R. v. MacIntyre, 44 N.R. 361, wherein the court expressed a method of calculating the term of imprisonment to be served by escapers before their release. LeBar alleged that the R. v.

MacIntyre decision applied to him, making his release date August 10, 1982. The correctional authorities held him until September 22, 1982. LeBar commenced an action for a declaration that the R. v. MacIntyre decision applied to him and for damages for unlawful imprisonment.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported in 8 F.T.R. 250, allowed LeBar's action. The court declared that LeBar was entitled to have his term of imprisonment calculated in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. MacIntyre. The court awarded Le-Bar $430 general damages and $10,000 exemplary damages. The Crown appealed the award of exemplary damages. LeBar appealed both damage awards.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

Constitutional Law - Topic 114

Definitions - Rule of law - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the necessity for the government and its officials to obey the law is the fundamental aspect of the principle of the rule of law - The rule of law must in all events mean "the law is supreme" and that officials of the government have no option to disobey it - See paragraph 11.

Courts - Topic 8

Precedents - Court of Appeal - Weight - Declaratory judgments - The Crown obtained a declaratory judgment in the Federal Court of Appeal respecting a prisoner's release date - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the declaratory judgment become a binding precedent and was binding on the Crown in a similar case involving a different prisoner - See paragraph 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 5662.2

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment - Term of - Effect of declaratory judgments re other prisoners in similar circumstances - LeBar was serving time for robbery and escaping custody - The Federal Court of Appeal issued a declaratory judgment (R. v. MacIntyre), which set out how to calculate the term of imprisonment for escapers - LeBar argued that the decision applied to him, making his release date August 10, 1982 - The correctional authorities held him until September 22, 1982 - He sued for damages - The Crown argued that R. v. MacIntyre, being a declaratory judgment, did not apply to LeBar - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the Crown was bound by R. v. MacIntyre.

Damage Awards - Topic 630

Torts affecting the person - False or unlawful imprisonment - Correctional authorities improperly detained a prisoner (LeBar) for 43 days after his release date - LeBar sued for damages for unlawful imprisonment - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed an award of $10 per day general damages ($430) to LeBar for his wrongful imprisonment - The court also affirmed an award of $10,000 exemplary damages for the correctional authorities' legally unjustifiable conduct - See paragraphs 17 to 27.

Damage Awards - Topic 2012

Exemplary or punitive damages - False imprisonment - [See Damages - Topic 1303 below].

Damages - Topic 1297

Exemplary or punitive damages - Conditions precedent - The Federal Court of Appeal held that malice or bad faith was not a requirement for the awarding of exemplary damages against the Crown - The only requirement was oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government - See paragraphs 17 to 19.

Damages - Topic 1303

Exemplary or punitive damages - False or unlawful imprisonment - LeBar was serving time for robbery and escaping custody - The Federal Court of Appeal issued a decision setting out how to calculate the term of imprisonment to be served by escapers (R. v. MacIntyre) - LeBar argued that R. v. MacIntyre applied to him and that his release date should be August 10, 1982 - The correctional authorities disagreed and held him until September 22, 1982 - LeBar sued for damages for unlawful imprisonment - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the R. v. MacIntyre decision applied to Le-Bar and awarded him $10,000 exemplary damages (plus general damages), for the legally unjustifiable conduct of the correctional authorities in holding him 43 days past his proper release date.

Damages - Topic 2441

Torts affecting the person - False or unlawful imprisonment - General - [See Damage Awards - Topic 630 above].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - The Crown obtained a declaratory judgment in the Federal Court of Appeal respecting a prisoner's release date - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the issue determined by the declaration became res judicata between the parties and a binding prece dent - Accordingly, the court affirmed that the judgment was binding on the Crown in a similar case involving a different prisoner - See paragraphs 6 to 9.

Practice - Topic 5656

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - Scope and content - Whether binding - [See Courts - Topic 8 above].

Practice - Topic 5656

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - Scope and content - Whether binding - [See Criminal Law - Topic

5662.2 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacIntyre, [1983] 1 F.C. 603; 44 N.R. 361, appld. [para. 4].

Letter Carrier's Union of Canada v. Canada Post Corporation (1986), 8 F.T.R. 93, refd to. [para. 7].

Emms v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Public Service Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1148; 29 N.R. 156, refd to. [para. 8].

Emms v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Public Service Commission, [1978] 2 F.C. 174; 17 N.R. 14, refd to. [para. 8].

Ouimet v. Canada, [1979] 1 F.C. 55; 21 N.R. 247, refd to. [para. 8].

Dyson v. Attorney General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 11].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1988), 87 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

Gould v. Attorney General of Canada et al., [1984] 1 F.C. 1119 (F.C. T.D.); [1984] 1 F.C. 1133; 54 N.R. 232 (F.C.A.), affd. (1984), 53 N.R. 394; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 491 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Sowa (1979), 1 Sask.R. 162; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 513, refd to. [para. 15].

Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] 1 All E.R. 367, refd to. [para. 18].

Broom v. Cassell & Co., [1972] A.C. 1027, refd to. [para. 19].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 557; 3 C.C.L.T. 225; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452, refd to. [para. 24].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 3 C.C.L.T. 372; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 24].

Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 607; 3 C.C.L.T. 257; 83 D.L. R.(3d) 480, refd to. [para. 24].

Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629; 39 N.R. 361; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 433; 129 D.L.R.(3d) 263, refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 137 [para. 5].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, preamble [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wade, H.W.R., Administrative Law (5th Ed.), p. 523 [para. 6].

de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), by J.M. Evans, p. 475 [para. 9].

Dicey, A.V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th Ed. 1959), by E.C.S. Wade, pp. 193, 202-203 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Donald J. Rennie, for the appellant;

Fergus O'Connor, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Donald J. Rennie, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Fergus O'Connor, Kingston, Ontario, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard before Urie, Mahoney and MacGuigan, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal, at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 12, 1988. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by MacGuigan, J., on October 27, 1988.