Legere v. Canada, (2003) 238 F.T.R. 209 (FC)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 12, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 238 F.T.R. 209 (FC);2003 FC 869

Legere v. Can. (2003), 238 F.T.R. 209 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.008

Harold James Legere (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-46-03; 2003 FC 869)

Indexed As: Legere v. Canada

Federal Court

Hargrave, Prothonotary

July 11, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff was unsuccessful in the British Columbia Supreme Court in custody and access proceedings involving his children. The plaintiff brought an action seeking damages, declarations and various prerogative writs against the Federal and Provincial Crown. The relief sought arose out of the B.C. Supreme Court orders of a master and three judges in the matrimonial and child custody proceeding and also out of the actions of the municipal police force of New Westminster, British Columbia.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court struck out the action for want of a cause of action.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8655

Judges (incl. justices of the peace) - Independence - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Courts - Topic 306

Judges - Independence of judiciary - General - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Courts - Topic 4008

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - Provincial Crown - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Courts - Topic 4012

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - General - Claims outside court's jurisdiction - The plaintiff was unsuccessful in the British Columbia Supreme Court in custody and access proceedings - The plaintiff sought damages, declarations and various prerogative writs against the Federal and Provincial Crown - The relief sought arose out of the B.C. Supreme Court orders of a master and three judges in the matrimonial and custody proceeding and also out of the actions of the municipal police force of New Westminster, British Columbia - The plaintiff based the action on the alleged supervisory jurisdiction on the part of the Federal Crown over judges and masters of the B.C. Supreme Court - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court struck out the action for want of a cause of action - The Federal Crown had no supervisory role vis-à-vis an independent judiciary - Also, allowing the action to proceed would be to allow a collateral attack on the decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court - Finally, if the New Westminster police force was responsible to the Crown, it would be to the Provincial Crown, an entity beyond Federal Court jurisdiction.

Courts - Topic 4210

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Particular matters - Claims by individuals against provincial Crown - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - Collateral attack - [See Courts - Topic 4012 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76, refd to. [para. 12].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 12].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 117; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 513; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 84 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 41, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 49 C.R.(3d) 97; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 15].

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. 15].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 26 C.R.R. 59, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 17].

Canadian Transport (U.K.) Ltd. v. Alsbury, [1953] 1 D.L.R. 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Creighton v. Franko et al. (1998), 151 F.T.R. 21 (T.D. Protho.), affd. (1998), 155 F.T.R. 303 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Rivard v. Morier and Boily, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716; 64 N.R. 46; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

Harold James Legere, on his own behalf;

Ken Manning, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant.

This motion was heard on May 12, 2003 at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 11, 2003.