Prentice v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (2005) 346 N.R. 201 (FCA)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Judge: Richard, C.J., Décary and Nadon, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2005), 346 N.R. 201 (FCA),2005 FCA 395
• Date: 10 November 2005
• Subject Matter: CIVIL RIGHTS,COURTS,CROWN,POLICE

Prentice v. RCMP (2005), 346 N.R. 201 (FCA)

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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. DE.007

Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Patrick Prentice (intimé)

(A-645-04; 2005 CAF 395; 2005 FCA 395)

Indexed As: Prentice v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Federal Court of Appeal

Richard, C.J., Décary and Nadon, JJ.A.

November 28, 2005.

Summary:

A former employee of the RCMP sued the RCMP claiming $3,250,000 in damages as a remedy for infringement of his rights guar­anteed by ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter. The RCMP moved to strike the action for want of jurisdiction and to strike the state­ment of claim because it disclosed no cause of ac­tion.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 267 F.T.R. 163; 2004 FC 1657, dismissed the motion. The RCMP appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment below, al­lowed the motion to strike and struck out the employee's amended statement of claim in its entirety.

Civil Rights - Topic 8351

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Crown im­munity or other bars to actions against Crown - [See Courts - Topic 4020 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - [ See Courts - Topic 4020 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8375

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - De­nial of rights - Remedies - Damages - [See Courts - Topic 4020 ].

Courts - Topic 4020

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Claims made under a stat­ute of Canada or Charter - A former em­ployee of the RCMP sued the RCMP claim­ing $3,250,000 in damages - He ar­gued that the RCMP did not prepare him prop­erly for the stressful and traumatizing events occurring during his assignments to peace missions abroad, which affected his health and this infringed his ss. 7 and 15 Charter rights - The Federal Court of Ap­peal struck out the statement of claim - Given the nature of this action, it was pro­hibited by ss. 8 and 9 of the Crown Lia­bil­ity and Proceedings Act and s. 12 of the Government Employees Compensation Act - Fur­ther, it could not be brought in the Fed­eral Court - The specialized tribu­nals established under the Royal Canadian Mount­ed Police Act, the Royal Mounted Po­lice Superannuation Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to determine such cases were where the employee should have taken his case - Because the compensation sought could already be recovered under various federal statutes, the employee could claim only the difference, which might constitute a remedy that was "appropriate and just in the circumstances" within the meaning of s. 24 of the Charter - Where no base com­pensation had been claimed the court could not determine the further compensation to which the employee would be entitled.

Crown - Topic 1643

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclu­sions - Receipt of compensation from con­solidated revenue fund or Crown agency - [See Courts - Topic 4020 ].

Crown - Topic 2887

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Denial of Charter rights - [See Courts - Topic 4020 ].

Police - Topic 5283

Actions against police - Defences - Statu­tory immunity - [See Courts - Topic 4020 ].

Cases Noticed:

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Dumont v. Canada, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 338 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 23].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 24].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 24].

House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 24].

Elders Grain Co. et al. v. Ship Ralph Mi­sener et al. (2005), 334 N.R. 1; 2005 FCA 139, refd to. [para. 29].

Grenier v. Minister of National Revenue (2005), 344 N.R. 102; 2005 FCA 348, refd to. [para. 32].

Sarvanis v. Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 921; 284 N.R. 263, refd to. [para. 34].

Lawrence v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1997), 125 F.T.R. 94 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 35].

St. Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; 96 N.R. 227; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 235 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 36].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 36].

Budge v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1991), 111 A.R. 228; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 42].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 43].

Auton et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657; 327 N.R. 1; 206 B.C.A.C. 1; 338 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 44].

Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2005), 335 N.R. 25; 2005 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 45].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 45].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Rees v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 79; 731 A.P.R. 79; 2005 NLCA 15, refd to. [para. 48].

Kovach v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 55; 251 N.R. 356; 133 B.C.A.C. 85; 217 W.A.C. 85; 2000 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 48].

Lindsay v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 59; 251 N.R. 14; 189 Sask.R. 49; 216 W.A.C. 49; 2000 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 48].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 49].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Ca­na­dian Paperworkers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 50].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 52].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 52].

Boucher v. Stelco - see Bourdon et al. v. Stelco Inc.

Bourdon et al. v. Stelco Inc. (2005), 341 N.R. 207; 2005 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 53].

Counsel:

Raymond Piché and Nadia Hudon, for the appellant;

Jacque Ferron and Gilles Savard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­er­al of Canada, Quebec, Quebec, for the ap­pellant;

Jacques Ferron, Quebec, Quebec, for the re­spondent.

This appeal was heard on November 10, 2005, at Montreal, Quebec, by Richard, C.J., Dé­cary and Nadon, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Dé­cary, J.A., on November 28, 2005.