Robinson v. Can., (1996) 110 F.T.R. 271 (TD)

Court:Federal Court
Case Date:February 21, 1996
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:(1996), 110 F.T.R. 271 (TD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Robinson v. Can. (1996), 110 F.T.R. 271 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Claude Robinson (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Jack Linklater, Wendell Headrick, Jim Hayman, Serge Paquette and John Doe One and John Doe Two (defendants)

(T-1494-93)

Indexed As: Robinson v. Canada et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

April 1, 1996.

Summary:

Penitentiary authorities incorrectly believed an inmate was planning to escape. The inmate was placed in a segregation unit. Subsequently, the inmate sued the Crown and penitentiary officials for damages on the grounds of breach of his Charter rights, civil conspiracy, abuse of authority, etc. The individual defendants applied under Federal Court Rules 401 and 419(1)(a) to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the ground there was no basis for the claim against them under federal law. The underlying issue was whether there would be multiple examinations for discovery, or only discovery of the Crown.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against the individual defendants.

Courts - Topic 4018

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Acts of officer or servant of Crown - An inmate sued the Crown and penitentiary officials for damages on the grounds of breach of his Charter rights, civil conspiracy, abuse of authority, etc. - The individual defendants applied under Federal Court Rules 401 and 419(1)(a) to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the ground there was no basis for the claim against them under federal law - The inmate submitted that the court derived jurisdiction by way of the Charter claim as well as under the Penitentiary Regulations enacted under the Penitentiary Act - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that it lacked jurisdiction over the individual defendants because there was no basis for the claim against them under federal law - See paragraphs 11 to 45.

Courts - Topic 4028

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Claims against Crown and related claims - An inmate sued the Crown and penitentiary officials in the Federal Court for damages on the grounds of breach of his Charter rights, civil conspiracy, abuse of authority, etc. - The Crown filed a defence on behalf of all defendants - The individual defendants applied under Federal Court Rule 401 for leave to file a conditional appearance in order to challenge jurisdiction, and under rule 419(1)(a) to have the statement of claim struck against them on the ground there was no reasonable cause of action because the court lacked jurisdiction - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that it was more appropriate to proceed on the basis of rule 401 but to apply the same analysis as under rule 419(1)(a) - See paragraphs 8 to 10.

Courts - Topic 4028

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Claims against Crown and related claims - [See Courts - Topic 4018 ].

Courts - Topic 4073

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Striking out pleadings - [See Courts - Topic 4018 and 4028 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 4018 and 4028 ].

Cases Noticed:

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 641, appld. [para. 6].

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco Brands Ltd. (1985), 62 N.R. 364; 5 C.P.R.(3d) 417 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Cairns et al. v. Farm Credit Corp. et al., [1992] 2 F.C. 115; 49 F.T.R. 308 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Banerd v. Canada et al. (1994), 88 F.T.R. 14 (T.D.), folld. [para. 10].

Francoeur et al. v. Canada et al. (1987), 18 F.T.R. 47 (T.D.), consd. [para. 10].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Incan Ships Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co. and Quebec and Ontario Transportation Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, folld. [para. 10].

Canada v. McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. et al. (Appeal No. 1); Canada v. Stevenson (J.) and Associates et al. (Appeal No. 2), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654; 13 N.R. 181, folld. [para. 10].

Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. R., [1979] 2 F.C. 476 (T.D.), affd. [1980] 1 F.C. 86 (F.C.A.), folld. [paras. 10, 12].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, consd. [para. 19].

Holt v. Canada (1988), 23 F.T.R. 109 (T.D.), folld. [para. 20].

Kigowa v. Minister of Employment and Immigration et al. (1990), 105 N.R. 278; 10 Imm. L.R.(2d) 161 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 21].

Oag v. Outerbridge and Howland, [1987] 2 F.C. 511; 73 N.R. 149 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 24].

Oag v. Canada - see Oag v. Outerbridge and Howland.

R. v. Moore; Oag v. R., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 658; 52 N.R. 258; 52 A.R. 347, refd to. [para. 25].

Hendricks v. Fairweather and Canada (1991), 45 F.T.R. 171 (T.D.), folld. [para. 27].

Nichols v. R., [1980] 1 F.C. 646 (T.D.), folld. [para. 29].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 30].

Truscott v. Mountain Institution (Director) (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 741 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Varnam v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (1988), 84 N.R. 163 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Maguire v. Canada et al. (1989), 31 F.T.R. 115; 66 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (T.D.), dist. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24 [para. 17].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 17(5)(b) [para. 11].

Federal Court Rules, rule 401, rule 419(1)(a) [para. 4].

Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2, sect. 10(1)(b), sect. 12, sect. 15 [para. 30].

Penitentiary Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-6, sect. 24(1) [para. 30].

Penitentiary Act Regulations (Can.), Penitentiary Service Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1251, sect. 2 [para. 35]; sect. 3 [paras. 29, 35]; sect. 5(1), sect. 13(a), sect. 13(b), sect. 14 [para. 35]; sect. 16 [para. 29]; sect. 40(1), sect. 40(2) [para. 35].

Penitentiary Service Regulations - see Penitentiary Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Strayer, Barry L., The Canadian Constitution and the Courts (3rd Ed. 1988), pp. 70 et seq. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Charles B. Davison, for the plaintiff;

Kirk Lambrecht, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Charles B. Davison, Edmonton, Alberta, for the plaintiff;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

This case was heard on February 21, 1996, at Edmonton, Alberta, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on April 1, 1996.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP