Meigs et al. v. Canada, (2013) 431 F.T.R. 111 (FC)

• Judge: Manson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 16, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 431 F.T.R. 111 (FC);2013 FC 389

Meigs v. Can. (2013), 431 F.T.R. 111 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.022

Ernest Meigs, Gregory Blair Beaudoin, Dax Mack, Ian Butz, Harley Lay Shane Hinton, Michael Mitchell and Leon Walchuk (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-2013-12; 2013 FC 389; 2013 CF 389)

Indexed As: Meigs et al. v. Canada

Federal Court

Manson, J.

April 17, 2013.

Summary:

The eight plaintiffs, representing themselves, sued Her Majesty the Queen (Canada) for damages arising from various personal harms allegedly suffered by them while they were inmates at a federal institution. The statement of claim alleged misfeasance in a public office; breach of ss. 7, 8, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter; and breach of ss. 126(1) and 356 of the Criminal Code. Canada moved to strike the statement of claim, without leave to amend, for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action (Federal Courts Rule 221(1)(a)) and being an abuse of process (rule 221(1)(f)).

The Federal Court struck the statement of claim, without leave to amend. Each of the claims failed for lack of material facts to support the claim.

Practice - Topic 1463

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Requirement of disclosing cause of action - [See Practice - Topic 2230.3 ].

Practice - Topic 1466

Pleadings - Statement of claim - Omission of essential facts - Effect of - [See Practice - Topic 2230.3 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Practice - Topic 2230.3 ].

Practice - Topic 2230.3

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to plead material facts - The eight plaintiffs, representing themselves, sued Her Majesty the Queen (Canada) for damages arising from various personal harms allegedly suffered by them while they were inmates at a federal institution - The causes of action included Canada's alleged failure to ensure the plaintiffs' rights with regards to privileged legal correspondence and access to legal research - The statement of claim alleged misfeasance in a public office; breaches of ss. 7, 8, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter; and breaches of the Criminal Code - The Federal Court granted Canada's motion to strike the statement of claim, without leave to amend, for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action (Federal Courts Rule 221(1)(a)) - The claim in respect of misfeasance in public office disclosed no material facts to support the claim - The plaintiffs' claim for damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter also failed - Taken individually or collectively, the allegations of Charter violations were so vague and deficient that the causes of action could not be maintained as pleaded - Similarly, the claim for breaches of the Criminal Code also failed - See paragraphs 13 to 22.

Prisons - Topic 1104

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Access to courts - The eight plaintiffs, representing themselves, sued Her Majesty the Queen (Canada) for damages arising from various personal harms allegedly suffered by them while they were inmates at a federal institution - The causes of action included Canada's alleged failure to ensure the plaintiffs' rights with regards to privileged legal correspondence and access to legal research and/or counsel - The Federal Court found that the defendant's motion to strike prevailed, as the claim failed to disclose a cause of action - Nevertheless, the court emphasized "that this decision should in no way be taken to excuse any denial by the defendant or its servants of the plaintiffs' right to reasonable access to counsel and the courts, or to appropriate legal and regulatory documents, as provided for pursuant to paragraph 97(3)(a) of the CCRR [Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations], and Commissioner's Directive 084, which provides the policy basis for that access." - See paragraph 23.

Prisons - Topic 1124

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Access to legal reading materials - [See Prisons - Topic 1104 ].

Prisons - Topic 1128

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Legal counsel - [See Prisons - Topic 1104 ].

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 6].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Jones v. Kemball et al., [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 14; 2012 FC 27, refd to. [para. 6].

Brazeau et al. v. Canada, [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 660; 2012 FC 648, refd to. [para. 7].

Sauve v. Canada et al., [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 654; 2011 FC 1074, refd to. [para. 7].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 8].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 13].

Lewis v. Canada, [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 781; 2012 FC 1514, refd to. [para. 13].

Merchant Law Group et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency et al. (2010), 405 N.R. 160; 2010 FCA 184, refd to. [para. 14].

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. 18].

Prentice v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2005), 346 N.R. 201; 2005 FCA 395, refd to. [para. 18].

Piche et al. v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al., [1984] F.C.J. No. 1008 (T.D.), affd. (1989), 98 N.R. 148 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 18].

Henry v. Canada (1987), 10 F.T.R. 176 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 18].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Dax Mack et al., on their own behalf, for the plaintiffs;

Deborah Babiuk-Gibson, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the defendant.

This motion was considered at Ottawa, Ontario, by Manson, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order and order, dated April 16, 2013.