LeBar v. Canada, (1987) 8 F.T.R. 250 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 02, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 8 F.T.R. 250 (TD)

LeBar v. Can. (1987), 8 F.T.R. 250 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Charles Lawrence LeBar v. Her Majesty The Queen

(No. T-7306-82)

Indexed As: LeBar v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

January 12, 1987.

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, 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 LeBar $430 general damages and $10,000 exemplary damages.

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 Canada, Trial Division, discussed whether the declaratory judgment was binding on the Crown in a similar case involving a different prisoner on the basis of stare decisis - See paragraphs 9 to 26.

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 Canada, Trial Division, held that the Crown was bound by R. v. MacIntyre and stated "it is, if not perfectly res judicata so as to bind these parties in an issue estoppel, then at least it is a matter of stare decisis by which the defendant [the Crown] ought to abide in computing the plaintiff's [LeBar's] term of imprisonment" - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Damage Awards - Topic 630

Torts affecting the person - False or unlawful imprisonment - Correction authorities improperly detained a prisoner (LeBar) for 43 days after his release date - LeBar sued for damages for unlawful imprisonment - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed its approach to the assessment of such damages and awarded LeBar $10 per day ($430) general damages for his wrongful imprisonment - The court held that because the prisoner had been involved in criminal activity over the years and incarcerated frequently he had devalued the worth of his liberty thus lowering his general damages considerably - The court also awarded the prisoner $10,000 exemplary damages for the correctional authorities' legally unjustifiable conduct - See paragraphs 28 to 56.

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 terms of imprisonment to be served by escapers (R. v. MacIntyre) - LeBar argued that the R. v. MacIntyre decision applied to him and his release date should be August 10, 1982 - The correctional authorities held him until September 22, 1982, arguing that the R. v. MacIntyre decision did not apply to LeBar - LeBar sued for damages for unlawful imprisonment - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the R. v. MacIntyre decision applied to LeBar 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 - See paragraphs 49 to 56.

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) - 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 Canada, Trial Division, discussed whether the declaratory judgment was binding on the Crown in a similar case involving a different prisoner on the basis of res judicata - See paragraphs 9 to 26.

Practice - Topic 5656

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - Scope and content - Whether binding - [See Criminal Law - 5662.2 above].

Cases Noticed:

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

Dyson v. Attorney-General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410; [1912] 1 Ch. 158, refd to. [para. 10].

Canadian Warehousing Association v. R., [1969] S.C.R. 176, refd to. [paras. 10, 12].

Cavanaugh v. Commissioner of Penitentiaries, [1974] 1 F.C. 515, not appld. [paras. 10, 11].

Angle v. M.N.R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 544, refd to. [paras. 10, 13].

Emms v. R., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1148; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 10, 17].

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Widmont, [1984] 2 F.C. 274; 56 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 23].

Maxie v. National Parole Board, [1985] 2 F.C. 163, refd to. [para. 24].

Cdn. Transport (U.K.) Limited v. Alsbury et al. (1952-53), 7 W.W.R.(N.S.) 49, refd to. [para. 26].

Liberty Ornamental Iron Ltd. v. B. Fertleman & Sons Ltd., [1977] 1 F.C. 584; 13 N.R. 552, refd to. [para. 26].

Bradley v. Town of Woodstock (1978), 22 N.B.R.(2d) 45; 39 A.P.R. 45 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Campbell v. S.S. Kresge Co. Ltd. (1976), 21 N.S.R.(2d) 236; 28 A.P.R. 236; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 717 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Eagle Motors v. Makoff, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 527 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Bahner v. Marwest Hotel (1970), 75 W.W.R.(N.S.) 729 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Roberts v. Buster's Auto Towing (1976), 70 D.L.R.(3d) 716 (B.C. S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Hayward v. F.W. Woolworth Co. Ltd. (1979), 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 17; 61 A.P.R. 17; 98 D.L.R.(3d) 345 (Nfld. S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Carpenter & al. v. MacDonald & al. (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 165 (Ont. D.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Tanner v. Norys, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 724; 21 A.R. 410 (Alta. S.C.), revsd. [1980] 4 W.W.R. 33; 21 A.R. 372 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1980] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 25 A.R. 274, consd. [paras. 37, 38].

Hejduk v. The Queen (B.C.), [1981] 4 W.W.R. 122 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 37, 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Herman and Hayden, Issue Estoppel and Mutuality of Parties (1986), 64 Can. Bar Rev. 437 [para. 21].

Linden, Canadian Tort Law (3rd Ed. 1982), pp. 44, 45 [para. 29]; 51 [para. 52].

Sarna, L., The Law of Declaratory Judgments (1978), pp. 176-178 [para. 10].

Zamir, The Declaratory Judgment (1962), pp. 1-3, 247-252, 282-284 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Fergus J. O'Connor, for the plaintiff;

Donald J. Rennie, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

O'Connor, Ecclestone & Kaiser, Kingston, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Kingston, Ontario, on October 2, 1986, before Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on January 12, 1987: