Rebillard v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 309 Man.R.(2d) 101 (QB)

• Judge: Edmond, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2014), 309 Man.R.(2d) 101 (QB);2014 MBQB 181

Rebillard v. Man. (A.G.) (2014), 309 Man.R.(2d) 101 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.039

Cynthia Lee Rebillard (plaintiff) v. Attorney General for The Province of Manitoba, Provincial and Prosecutions for the Province of Manitoba and The City of Winnipeg Police Service and Douglas O'Nagi and Derrick Somerville and Jonathon Kiazyk and Peter Braun (defendants)

(CI 13-01-86015; 2014 MBQB 181)

Indexed As: Rebillard v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Edmond, J.

September 5, 2014.

Summary:

In a decision not reported in this series of reports, a Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the defendants' motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff appealed and sought leave to amend the statement of claim.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

Courts - Topic 589

Judges - Duties - To self-represented party - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Police - Topic 5041

Actions against police - For false arrest - General - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Police - Topic 5061

Actions against police - For false imprisonment - General - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 2213

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - With leave to amend - A Master granted the defendants' motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's appeal with leave to amend the statement of claim - If the claim was in proper form, it might not be plain and obvious that the claim ought to be struck out - A self-represented litigant "should not be denied the opportunity of presenting his or her case to the court by a strict application of the Rules" - The "touchstone" was fairness - If leave was not granted, the plaintiff might be prejudiced due to limitations arguments etc. - That prejudice had to be taken into account - However, the court stipulated that the amended claim had to be submitted for review by the court - The plaintiff was not granted leave to amend generally and no amended statement of claim could be filed without further review - See paragraphs 40 to 48.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - A Master granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's appeal - The claim appeared to be based on allegations of false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution - If the plaintiff was alleging false arrest or false imprisonment, she had to plead the following material facts: (a) The arresting officer did not have a warrant for the arrest; (b) the arresting officer did not subjectively have reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence had been committed; (c) a reasonable person in the position of the arresting officer would not conclude that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest; and (d) the arresting officer did not believe that the arrest was necessary on reasonable and probable grounds to prevent the continuation of the offence - The claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action - Further, it was scandalous, frivolous and/or vexatious - The claim was "replete with conclusions, expressions of opinion and evidence" - Therefore, it offended the rules of pleading and had to be struck under Queen's Bench Rule 25.11(b) - See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Practice - Topic 2230.3

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to plead material facts - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Cases Noticed:

Laing v. Sekundiak (2013), 286 Man.R.(2d) 273; 2013 MBQB 17, agreed with [para. 4].

Provincial Drywall Supply Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank et al. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 161; 238 W.A.C. 161; 2001 MBCA 38, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. - see British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al.

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. 15].

Bergen et al. v. Manitoba et al. (1998), 125 Man.R.(2d) 65 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 17].

Coleman v. Pateman Farms Ltd. et al. (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 144; 246 W.A.C. 144; 2001 MBCA 75, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].

Kreiner v. Auditor General (Man.) (2007), 213 Man.R.(2d) 252; 2007 MBQB 61, refd to. [para. 29].

Bellan v. Curtis et al. (2007), 219 Man.R.(2d) 175; 2007 MBQB 221, refd to. [para. 30].

Hall v. Puchniak et al. (1995), 99 Man.R.(2d) 186 (Q.B.), revd. in part (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 93; 109 W.A.C. 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 35].

Gilbert v. Gilkinson et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Peguis First Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 307 Man.R.(2d) 22; 2014 MBQB 98, refd to. [para. 39].

Counsel:

C.L. Rebillard, appeared in person;

Tom B. Dobson, for the defendants, Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba, Provincial and Prosecutions for the Province of Manitoba;

Denise A.M. Pambrun, for the defendants, The City of Winnipeg Police Service and Douglas O'Nagi and Derrick Somerville and Jonathon Kiazyk;

No appearance for the defendant, P. Braun.

This appeal was heard by Edmond, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on September 5, 2014.