Pearson v. Canada, 2006 FC 931

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 29, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 931;(2006), 297 F.T.R. 121 (FC)

Pearson v. Can. (2006), 297 F.T.R. 121 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.021

Edwin Pearson (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-290-99; 2006 FC 931)

Indexed As: Pearson v. Canada

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

July 28, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the federal Crown for damages, alleging wilful abuse of process and malicious violations of the plaintiff's Charter rights by the Crown and her officers, servants and agents in his criminal prosecution for narcotics offences in the Quebec courts.

The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's action.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - In 1999, the plaintiff sued the federal Crown for damages, alleging wilful abuse of process and malicious violations of the plaintiff's Charter rights in his criminal prosecution for narcotics offences in the Quebec courts which were allegedly committed in 1989 - The prosecution had a complex and lengthy history in the Quebec courts, including two decisions of the Quebec Court of Appeal and a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada - The Federal Court stated that no matter how one looked at the plaintiff's claim, damages could only be awarded if the court came to the conclusion that the defendant, through its agents (Crown attorneys and R.C.M.P. officers), not only infringed the plaintiff's right to a fair trial but that those violations caused him to be convicted and imprisoned - To reach that conclusion, the court would inevitably have to second guess the Court of Appeal of Quebec in its findings both of 1994 and 1999 - The court therefore rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages, stating that it was an abuse of process to relitigate that which was already determined by the courts - The court opined further that even if it was not precluded from adjudicating the plaintiff's claim, it could not find in his favour because he was not successful in establishing his claim - See paragraphs 60 to 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.24

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Limitation of actions - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 7582 ].

Courts - Topic 4028

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Claims against Crown and related claims - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7582

Actions against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - Charter remedies - In 1999, the plaintiff sued the federal Crown for damages, alleging wilful abuse of process and malicious violations of the plaintiff's Charter rights in his criminal prosecution for narcotics offences in the Quebec courts which were allegedly committed in 1989 - An issue arose as to whether the plaintiff's claim for Charter relief was barred by the three year time limitation for enforcing a personal right under s. 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec - The Federal Court held that limitation periods were applicable to damage claims under the Charter; however, it was open to a person seeking damages to show that a particular time limitation deprived that person of an appropriate and just remedy and then the burden would shift on the government to justify the limitation period - The court stated that the plaintiff did not attempt to show that the applicable limitation period was objectionable and tantamount to a deprivation of his right to obtain a just and fair remedy; nor could such an argument have succeeded - The court stated that it could therefore dispose of this claim for damages on that sole ground - However, in light of the uncertainty surrounding the whole issue of prescription in relation to Charter based claims, the court proceeded to analyze the other issues raised - See paragraphs 44 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173, refd to. [para. 8].

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. 16].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

St. Jacques v. Fédération des employeés et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 48].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 48].

McGillivary v. New Brunswick and Moncton (City) (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 281; 372 A.P.R. 281; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Nagy v. Phillips et al. (1996), 187 A.R. 97; 127 W.A.C. 97; 137 D.L.R.(4th) 715 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Gauthier v. Lac Brôme (Ville), [1995] A.Q. no 762, refd to. [para. 51].

Gauthier v. Lambert, [1988] R.D.J. 14 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1988), 89 N.R. 79; 20 Q.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

St-Onge v. Canada (2001), 288 N.R. 3 (F.C.A.), affing. (1999), 178 F.T.R. 104 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Prete v. Ontario et al. (1993), 68 O.A.C. 1; 16 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Duplessis v. Canada, [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 204; 2004 FC 154, refd to. [para. 53].

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan et al. (2004), 251 Sask.R. 156; 2004 SKQB 260, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 61].

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. 61].

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, refd to. [para. 69].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), revd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 73].

Boisclair v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] Q.J. No. 4459 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [1997] A.Q. no 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Michaud v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 3; 201 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 83].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 83].

Hawley et al. v. Bapoo et al., [2005] O.T.C. 894; 76 O.R.(3d) 649 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299, refd to. [para. 85].

Spatling v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al. (2003), 233 F.T.R. 6; 2003 FCT 443 (Proth.), refd to. [para. 92].

Pieters v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 830; 2004 FC 1418, refd to. [para. 92].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, sect. 2925 [para. 44].

Counsel:

Edwin Pearson, self-represented;

Jacques Savary and David Lucas, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Justice of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This matter was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 24-26 and at Montreal, Quebec, on November 17-25, 2005, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 29, 2006.