---------- Original message ---------- From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:51:23 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister Dorothy Shephard and her mindless minions should do the right thing for Nicky Theriault ASAP N'esy Pas Mr Higgs??? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com
Methinks Minister Dorothy Shephard and her mindless minions should do the right thing for Nicky by simply restoring the prior arrangements and repaying his Mother Colette Theriault for her losses since they attacked her N'esy Pas?
Mother says she was forced to falsify records to get help for disabled son
In rural St. Martins, no home care is available at the official rate of $14 an hour
Connell Smith· CBC News·
Colette Theriault had to give up her career to look after her son, Dominic (Nicky) Theriault, 28. (Brian Chisholm/CBC)
Colette Theriault finds some moments of peace while caring alone for her profoundly disabled son Nicky, but more and more these days she finds herself fearing for his future.
The 55-year-old Theriault says she's refinanced her home, is about to lose her car and lives with the worry she may be charged with allegedly misusing funding she receive from the province for Nicky's care.
Her son is 28 and has the body and weight of a man but wears a diaper, cannot speak and functions at the level of a two-year-old.
He can suffer a seizure with little warning and cannot, ever, be left alone.
And Theriault cannot find or afford help to look after him.
Provincial support of $5,156 a month was cut off in April 2018, the day two Department of Social Development staff arrived at Theriault's home in St. Martins, west of Saint John on the Bay of Fundy.
She and her son are now surviving on $1,900 a month, an amount that includes $753 disability received by Nicky.
The social worker and investigator from Social Development who visited in April informed Theriault she was under investigation, suspected of improperly using the money she was getting to hire caregivers.
"One of them tells me that they've received a call, and I'm not allowed to know who called,"
Theriault said. "They received a call that somebody said the money that Nicky was receiving for his activities and for things like that was misused."
Can't move to city
It's a serious charge, and Theriault admits that technically she has not properly accounted for all of the spending.
But she claims she had no choice. Hiring long-term home-care workers has proved nearly impossible in St. Martins, as it has in many of New Brunswick's rural communities.
And said she can't move to Saint John because her home is fully mortgaged, and the amount she could get for it is well below the assessed value.
Every time that I had somebody helping me out with Nicky was a blessing.- Colette Theriault
Nicky, who attended special programs in the regular school system, has been home full time since suffering an injury on board the school bus in 2012.
For most of the time since then, Theriault has managed his care, hiring and scheduling caregivers, using the support funding from the Department of Social Development.
She had been given a free hand to use the monthly support from the province to manage her son's care, mainly because the province couldn't find a permanent aide itself.
She is adamant she did not keep any of the money for herself.
There were times when she did pay more than the allowed $14 per hour to have someone care for Nicky, so she could handle other chores.
Sometimes she paid up to $25 an hour for care and admits to later falsifying the paperwork. She brought the rate down in her records by spreading the total amount paid over more hours than were actually worked.
Department took over care
Everything came crashing down in April.
After the visit from the Social Development employees, the department said it would take over management of Nicky's care and pay for home support workers directly through an agency.
A department letter dated May 14, 2018, said Theriault's son would receive 11 hours per day of care from support workers from Integrity Home Health Services of Saint John.
But the plan didn't take into account the well-known shortage of home-care workers in New Brunswick.
Nicky cannot speak and needs constant care. He's been approved for 11 hours of home-are support daily but no workers can be found. (Brian Chisholm/CBC)
The first provincially contracted personal support worker wasn't even assigned to Nicky until July and lasted just three days. The second one quit after four.
Theriault has seen no one from Integrity Home Health Services of Saint John since then. She's not surprised.
Finding support workers who will travel 40 minutes to her home to perform chores such as changing Nicky's diaper, on a wage of $14 an hour, has always been a challenge.
They can tell me that I might do wrong by their paperwork, but by my Nicky I've done right. And I know I've done right, there's not argument about that.- Colette Theriault
Left without reliable help, Theriault gave up her full-time career as a holistic therapist six years ago to care for her son full-time, although she still needed outside help.
"Every time that I had somebody helping me out with Nicky was a blessing," Theriault said. "There's no other words for saying that, because I was by myself. I was by myself mowing the lawn, I was by myself changing his bum, I was by myself when he was sick, I was by myself doing the groceries.
"Anybody that came out here and offered help, I was more than happy to pay them whatever they wanted."
In six years, Theriault never exceeded the total monthly allotment for home care.
She believes what got her into trouble is little more than management of the paperwork required by the department.
The forms offer no flexibility when it comes to accounting for expenses and are not appropriate for situations like hers, she said.
She said she was questioned in particular about a $3,800 expense she filed to take her son to a special camp for the disabled in Quebec. She used the break to make a rare trip to Toronto to see her other son.
Afraid son will be put in group home
Nicky Theriault, his mother Colette and the family dog. (Brian Chisholm/CBC )
Theriault's claims cannot be confirmed. A spokesman for the Department of Social Development said confidentiality rules forbid the discussion of any case involving clients.
Theriault said her biggest fear is that the uncertain situation will end with Nicky being placed in a group home. She believes that he would not survive such a change in environment or that he would end up heavily sedated.
You can make more working in the fast food industry than you can providing care. - Haley Flaro , Ability New Brunswick
But the past several months without help — and no access to the money the province would spend on his care if it could find caregivers — have taken a toll on them both. Family members who provide care to disabled members are not eligible for provincial support.
"I'm kind of worried they're going to send me too far deep, and I will not be able to bring myself back," Theriault said. "So what happens to Nicky [then]?
"They can tell me that I might do wrong by their paperwork, but by my Nicky I've done right. And I know I've done right, there's not argument about that."
Shortage of workers a 'crisis'
Haley Flaro, executive director of Ability New Brunswick, has has heard much of this before.
She described the shortage of home-support workers as a "crisis."
"Our organization is increasingly concerned about caregiver burnout," said Flaro, whose organization offers support to disabled people and their families.
"About 60 percent of the families, adults that we work with that need home support, have to hire privately because they can't find an agency that can either fill their hours or provide the level of care they need.
"You can make more working in the fast food industry than you can providing care."
Trying to make job attractive
Dorothy Shephard, the minister of social development, says the provincial government is committed to increasing the number of home-care workers by making the job more attractive. (Brian Chisholm/CBC)
Minister Dorothy Shephard, the minister of social development, said the new government is committed to making it more attractive for people to become personal support workers.
"We want home care to be a profession, we want the training and the salary to match the importance of the profession," Shephard said. "There are some rural challenges and we need to certainly focus on that."
About 4,500 people are employed by private agencies in New Brunswick, and Shephard said she does not yet know how many more are needed.
She said her department does not yet have its budget numbers for this year and she cannot say how much money will be devoted to the solving the shortage of home-care workers.
About the Author
Connell Smith
Reporter
Connell Smith is a reporter with CBC in Saint John. He can be reached at 632-7726 Connell.smith@cbc.ca
Participating in the Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins meet the candidates event, hosted by the Chamber of Commerce, are Progressive Conservative candidate Bruce Northrup; Fred Harrison of the Green party; Liberal Ian Smyth; Peoples Alliance candidate Jim Bedford and David Amos running as an Independent. Photo: Tammy Scott-Wallace/Telegraph-Journal
SUSSEX • The rate in which families are leaving the province and the pain that causes the economy needs to be a primary focus in the Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins riding this election, said Progressive Conservative candidate Bruce Northrup. And to him, closing the door to the development of the province’s natural resources is the main contributor to the problem of out-migration. Differing political positions were represented during a meet the candidates event in the riding Wednesday night. “Why are they going west?” Northrup asked, answering his own question. “To work in oil fields, to work in natural gas.” Those who move away for work are often lost forever as they settle down and make their family there, he added. Northrup has been staunchly opposed to the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing Brian Gallant’s Liberal put in place following the last provincial election. “We have to develop our natural gas and natural resources to keep them here. They’re exiting by the hundreds,” Northrup said. Liberal candidate Ian Smyth, however, sees it differently. He believes there’s lots of work, but not the right “attitudes.” He talked about recent job interviews he was conducting on his farm where he was offering a $13 an hour job. The person he was supposed to interview didn’t bother to show up or call, and that
Participating in the Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins meet the candidates event, hosted by the Chamber of Commerce, are Progressive Conservative candidate Bruce Northrup; Fred Harrison of the Green party; Liberal Ian Smyth; Peoples Alliance candidate Jim Bedford and David Amos running as an Independent. Photo: Tammy Scott-Wallace/Telegraph-Journal
SUSSEX • The rate in which families are leaving the province and the pain that causes the economy needs to be a primary focus in the Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins riding this election, said Progressive Conservative candidate Bruce Northrup.
And to him, closing the door to the development of the province’s natural resources is the main contributor to the problem of out-migration.
Differing political positions were represented during a meet the candidates event in the riding Wednesday night.
“Why are they going west?” Northrup asked, answering his own question. “To work in oil fields, to work in natural gas.”
Those who move away for work are often lost forever as they settle down and make their family there, he added. Northrup has been staunchly opposed to the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing Brian Gallant’s Liberal put in place following the last provincial election.
“We have to develop our natural gas and natural resources to keep them here. They’re exiting by the hundreds,” Northrup said.
Liberal candidate Ian Smyth, however, sees it differently.
He believes there’s lots of work, but not the right “attitudes.”
He talked about recent job interviews he was conducting on his farm where he was offering a $13 an hour job. The person he was supposed to interview didn’t bother to show up or call, and that happened five times, Smyth said.
“There’s not a shortage of work. There’s all kinds of work,” he said, “but attitudes have to change.” People have the right to leave the province for better work opportunities, he added. “It’s all about choices – it’s a free country,” said the father of four young children.
As someone who left his community of St. Martins where he was fire chief for 22 years to go to Alberta, Peoples Alliance candidate Bedford said, he knows how difficult it is to uproot. The low wages he was earning picking rocks, however wasn’t near enough. He sent six resumes to Alberta companies, and he received calls for work from all six of them.
He lived there with his family for 10 years.
“People are payments away from losing their homes,” Bedford said. “We’re fooling ourselves when we say how great we are. Look around your neighbourhood, look around this room.”
Dollar figures on what the sweet spot should be for an adequate provincial minimum wage fluctuated among parties when the question came up.
Independent candidate David Amos, who ran federally the last time around, says people are not earning what they need to survive. He believes $18 an hour is a fair paycheque.
“Why can’t the working man earn what the old man gets?” he said, referring to his old age pension. He said often the working person still has a family to raise at home.
But an appropriate minimum wage is not only about another couple bucks for the worker, Bedford pointed out.
“It’s a fine balancing act,” the Sussex businessman said. A $15 minimum wage, he said, pushes closer to $35 an hour for the employer who has to contribute more for employment insurance and Canada Pension Plan for the worker.
A small crowd of voters attended the Sussex and District Chamber of Commerce event to meet the candidates of Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins on Wednesday night in Sussex Corner. Photo: Tammy Scott-Wallace/Telegraph-JournalThat could mean fewer businesses, and in turn fewer jobs. “You have to look at what the full impact will be,” Bedford said. Minimum wage in New Brunswick is currently $11.25 an hour, which is similar to the other Maritime provinces. But the Liberals are committing as part of their election platform to increasing it to $14 an hour gradually, Smyth said. “People need $14 to survive,” he said. The Green party wants to do even better than that, said candidate Fred Harrison, by raising the amount $1 a year until it reaches $15.25. Northrup said the Tories are not committing to an increase. Amos, Bedford and Northrup all took aim at the controversial carbon tax the Liberals have committed to.
A small crowd of voters attended the Sussex and District Chamber of Commerce event to meet the candidates of Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins on Wednesday night in Sussex Corner. Photo: Tammy Scott-Wallace/Telegraph-Journal That could mean fewer businesses, and in turn fewer jobs.
“You have to look at what the full impact will be,” Bedford said.
Minimum wage in New Brunswick is currently $11.25 an hour, which is similar to the other Maritime provinces.
But the Liberals are committing as part of their election platform to increasing it to $14 an hour gradually, Smyth said.
“People need $14 to survive,” he said.
The Green party wants to do even better than that, said candidate Fred Harrison, by raising the amount $1 a year until it reaches $15.25.
Northrup said the Tories are not committing to an increase.
Amos, Bedford and Northrup all took aim at the controversial carbon tax the Liberals have committed to.
“There’s no disputing climate change,” Amos said. “Mother Nature is going to do what she wants to do. New taxation isn’t going to fix it.”
Bedford also believes it should be eliminated, as should taxes on used vehicles. There should also be a major drop in small business tax, he said.
The Progressive Conservative platform has a sharp focus on reducing taxes, Northrup said. “My favourite three words in our platform is ‘no more taxes’,” he said. “We want to put more money in your pockets.
“At the end of the day we’re totally, totally taxed out.”
It was a mild, small crowd of about 25 people that gathered to meet the candidates hosted by the Sussex and District Chamber of Commerce in Sussex Corner.
The Chamber held a similar event in early August, before the writ was dropped.
Wednesday evening’s event took place at the same time a televised debate among the provincial party leaders was happening.
Fracking, which is often a hot topic in the Sussex region with the business community supporting it, received varying opinions during the panel discussion.
Amos is against fracking.
“If there’s nothing in it for all of us, why bother?” he said, referring to the companies that have more to benefit than New Brunswickers with its inadequate royalty structure.
But Northup believes there’s a lot of benefit for New Brunswickers to use its own natural resources, from salt mined in Picadilly, to natural gas.
In his opinion, too much is being brought into the province from outside.
“We need to develop our own resources to benefit ourselves,” he said. People in the riding need to work, especially since the potash mine in the riding closed in 2016, taking hundreds of jobs with it.
Bedford cannot reasonably expect there not to be hiccups along the way with any new developments, but feels “the benefits are going to outweigh the risks.”
He too believes “we need to depend on ourselves. We need to get people working.”
Harrison said potential risks need to be fully understood, but generally speaking he doesn’t oppose natural resource development.
“I would still want to err on the side of the environment and encourage and develop more natural resources that are sustainable,” the artist said.
---------- Original message ---------- From: "Hardy, Erin (SNB)"<Erin.Hardy@snb.ca> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:11:58 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Serge Trust that the First Canadian Title people, the Fidelity minions and many lawyers will tell you that I will figure out what a form 13a is. To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello,
I will be out of the office from August 9-24 inclusive. I will reply to your email upon my return, however, I will be checking emails periodically. Thank you.
Bonjour,
Je serai absent du bureau du 9 au 24 août inclusivement. Je répondrai à votre courriel à mon retour, mais, je vérifierai régulièrement les courriels. Merci.
---------- Original message ---------- From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 06:11:54 -0700 Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: Hey Serge Trust that the First Canadian Title people, the Fidelity minions and many lawyers will tell you that I will figure out what a form 13a is. To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
(Français à suivre)
If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Thank you.
Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick, svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Serge Gauvin Registrar General of Land Titles Called to the bar: 1995 (NB) Phone: 506-457-6933 Fax: 506-444-3033 Email: serge.gauvin@snb.ca Patrick V. Windle Deputy Registrar General of Land Titles Called to the bar: 1997 (NB) Email: patrick.windle@snb.ca Service New Brunswick Land Registry, 985 College Hill Rd. PO Box 1998, Stn. A Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5G4
---------- Original message ---------- From: "Auto-reply from kevhache@nb.aibn.com"<kevhache@nb.aibn.com> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 18:20:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Too Funny I just talked to Claude Landry Elvy Robichaud’s old Chief of Staff He forgot what went down in 2004 and the emails I sent him since To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com
Bonjour
Je serais absent du bureau du 6 aout au 22 aout inclusivement. Le bureau sera fermé du 6 au 19 aout inclusivement pour les vacances d ete et sera ouvert a partir du 20 aout. Bonne Vacance a tous
Je retournerais votre courriel a mon retour.
Kevin J. Hache
CABINET KEVIN J. HACHE 8 Boul St-Pierre Ouest C.P. 5662 Caraquet NB E1W 1B7 506 727 5150 (telephone) 506 727 6686 (telecopieur) kevhache@nb.sympatico.ca
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 06:01:57 -0700 Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: Fwd: I just called Alan Roy again about my right to health care, my missing 1965 Harley, the Yankee Wiretaps tapes in its saddlebag and Federal Court and his assistant played dumb as usual To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
(Français à suivre)
If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Thank you.
Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick, svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:51:09 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE Irving's ridiculous constitutional challenge and Federal Court File no T-1557-15 I wonder if George Cooper and Hélène Beaulieure even know how many times the Irvings and partners of their VERY snobby law firm have offended me over t... To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until October 30, 2017. Je serai absent du bureau jusqu'au 30 octobre 2017.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Eidt, David (OAG/CPG)"<David.Eidt@gnb.ca> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:33:21 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Mr Lutz howcome your buddy the clerk would not file this motion and properly witnessed affidavit and why did she take all four copies? To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until Monday, March 13, 2017. I will have little to no access to email. Please dial 453-2222 for assistance.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:16:46 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until August 15, 2016. Je serai absent du bureau jusqu'au 15 août 2016.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "McNair, John (SNB)"<John.McNair@snb.ca> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:04:29 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office August 1 - August 12. I will reply to your email when I return. If you require immediate assistance, please contact Chantal Leger at 663-2510. Thank you.
Je serai absent du bureau les 1 aout - 12 aout. Je répondrai à votre courriel à mon retour. Si vous nécessitez de l'assistance immédiatement, veuillez contacter Chantal Leger au 663-2510. Merci.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hardy, Erin (SNB)"<Erin.Hardy@snb.ca> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:04:28 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: RE: The New Brunswick Real Estate Association and their deliberate ignorance for the bankster's benefit To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Le francais suit:
Hello,
I am currently out of the office. I will gladly reply to your message upon my return on August 15, 2016. Should you require immediate assitance please contact Celeste Savoie at (506) 471-5290 or by email: Celeste.Savoie@snb.ca.
Have a nice day!
Bonjour,
Je suis presentement hors du bureau. Il me fera plaisir de repondre a votre message a mon retour August 15, 2016. Si vous avez besoin d'une assitance immediate, veuillez communiquer avec Celeste Savoie au (506) 471-5290 ou par courriel a: Celeste.Savoie@snb.ca.
Bonne journee!
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marc Richard <MRichard@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:43:27 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Oh My My we just talked briefly Correct Ms Beaulieu? It appears to me that the latest President of the NB Law Society thinks non lawyers are not worth talking to To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be out of the office until July 21, 2014. Je serai absent du bureau jusqu'au 21 juillet 2014.
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400 > Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., > To: coi@gnb.ca > Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > Good Day Sir > > After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed > to speak to one of your staff for the first time > > Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who > answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt > at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker > Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document. > > These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I > suggested that you study closely. > > This is the docket in Federal Court > > http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T > > These are digital recordings of the last three hearings > > Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug > > January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015 > > April 3rd, 2017 > > https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing > > > This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal > > http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All > > > The only hearing thus far > > May 24th, 2017 > > https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown > > > This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity > > Date: 20151223 > > Docket: T-1557-15 > > Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015 > > PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell > > BETWEEN: > > DAVID RAYMOND AMOS > > Plaintiff > > and > > HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN > > Defendant > > ORDER > > (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on > December 14, 2015) > > The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to > the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November > 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim > in its entirety. > > At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a > letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then > capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian > Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg, > (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter > he stated: > > As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the > work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you. > You are your brother’s keeper. > > Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former > colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to > expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of > people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses > or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to > me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime > Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former > Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of > Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore; > former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former > Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff > Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court > of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired > Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted > Police. > > In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my > personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many > potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am > of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I > hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in > Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, > [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding > allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has > requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so. > > > AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of > the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There > is no order as to costs. > > “B. Richard Bell” > Judge > > > Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment > already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent > to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006. > > I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court > Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the > bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my > lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada? > > "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca > Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM > Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in > Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to > submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you > dudes are way past too late > To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com > > Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à > lalanthier@hotmail.com > > Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à > tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca > > Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at > lalanthier@hotmail.com > > To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to > tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca > > Thank you, > > Merci , > > > http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html > > > 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war > in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to > allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over > five years after he began his bragging: > > January 13, 2015 > This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate > > December 8, 2014 > Why Canada Stood Tall! > > Friday, October 3, 2014 > Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And > Stupid Justin Trudeau > > Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide > behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts. > > When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien > actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign > in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to > the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were > involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were > significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth > of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for > operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute” > Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind. > The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not > deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a > Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to > redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was > less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But > alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s > then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s > incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic, > professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle > Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway > campaign of 2006. > > What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then > Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the > Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent, > support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament. > > What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling > chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of > less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners > as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a > deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make. > > The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have > the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war. > That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by > constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is > remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of > non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government > regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this > instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a > limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East. > > President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror > attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state” > Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control, > and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The > initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and > > P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of > the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have > had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical. > Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me. > > Subject: > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400 > From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca > To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com > > January 30, 2007 > > WITHOUT PREJUDICE > > Mr. David Amos > > Dear Mr. Amos: > > This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29, > 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP. > > Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have > taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve > Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton. > > Sincerely, > > Honourable Michael B. Murphy > Minister of Health > > CM/cb > > > Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote: > > Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500 > From: "Warren McBeath"warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca, > nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net, > motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com > CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca, > Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON"bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, > "Paul Dube"PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has > forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not > > Dear Mr. Amos, > > Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off > over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I > was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns. > > As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position > is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process > testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the > Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these > services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this > instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done. > > As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false > imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear > that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada > the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment > and policing in Petitcodiac, NB. > > It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on > December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors. > > Sincerely, > > Warren McBeath, Cpl. > GRC Caledonia RCMP > Traffic Services NCO > Ph: (506) 387-2222 > Fax: (506) 387-4622 > E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca > > > > Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., > Office of the Integrity Commissioner > Edgecombe House, 736 King Street > Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1 > tel.: 506-457-7890 > fax: 506-444-5224 > e-mail:coi@gnb.ca >
Mr. Amos, We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will not be responding to further emails on this matter.
Sunday, 19 November 2017 Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before The Supreme Court
BETWEEN: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS Respondent on the cross-appeal (and formally Appellant) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant on the cross-appeal (and formerly Respondent) Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
THE COURT
Date: 20171030
Docket: A-48-16 Citation: 2017 FCA 213 CORAM:
WEBB J.A. NEAR J.A. GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS Respondent on the cross-appeal (and formally Appellant) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant on the cross-appeal (and formerly Respondent) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
I. Introduction
[1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos) filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan (Claim at para. 96).
[2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious, and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the Prothontary’s Order).
[3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr. Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr. Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
[4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016. As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s cross-appeal.
II. Preliminary Matter
[5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal. This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with several judges but did not name those judges.
[6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7:
5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. […]
5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale. […] 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les juges de la Cour fédérale.
[7] However, these subsections only provide that the judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this section. [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that: 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et pénale. 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et pénale.
[9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that appeal book.
[10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a conflict in any matter related to him.
[11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
[12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that such judge had a conflict.
[13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr. Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he was a member of such firm.
[14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb, focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
[15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer. [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias: 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the reasonable apprehension of bias: … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
[17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v. Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 193).
[18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v. Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict: 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement, as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J. in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.), for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge. His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept, that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85: To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making, or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making. 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with his former firm for a considerable period of time.
32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage. In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving events from over a decade ago. (emphasis added)
[19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice Webb hearing this appeal.
[20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R. (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
[21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4 F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr. Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
[22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD. He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
[23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him to recuse himself.
[24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
[25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr. Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time, both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry, begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr. Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
III. Issue
[26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
IV. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
[27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
[28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to interfere.
B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the Prothonotary’s Order?
[29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006 in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court. (…)
21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance. A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he suspects he is barred from the House of Commons. [footnotes omitted].
[30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at para. 27).
[31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada, 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
[13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly. Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28 (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
[32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office because the actors, who barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
[33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321 D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
…When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”. “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald, conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse of process…
To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.” (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
[34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
[35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons, these allegations are not particularized and are directed against non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such, the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action.
[36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend. The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
V. Conclusion [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment, dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety without leave to amend. "Wyman W. Webb" J.A. "David G. Near" J.A. "Mary J.L. Gleason" J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15. DOCKET:
A-48-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING:
Fredericton, New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING:
May 24, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
WEBB J.A. NEAR J.A. GLEASON J.A.
DATED:
October 30, 2017
APPEARANCES: David Raymond Amos
For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal (on his own behalf)
Jan Jensen
For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada
John Williamson - Conservative Nomination Candidate New Brunswick Southwest May 17 at 12:48pm ·
Great news! John Williamson is running for the federal Conservative nomination in New Brunswick Southwest. He needs your help to secure the riding and defeat the Trudeau Liberals in 2019.
Having served as Member of Parliament from 2011-2015, he knows the issues, has proven ability, and can win: John had the highest Conservative vote — 38.6% — of all 32 ridings in Atlantic Canada in 2015. It wasn’t enough to get over the top, but it was a clear signal that his local campaign was strong.
How can you help? Only current Conservative Party members can vote for John in the nomination, so please signup or renew your membership here: https://donate.conservative.ca/membership/
There are also envelopes that need stuffing, phone calls that need to be made, and events already planned.
Contact John today by e-mail at VoteJohnW@gmail.com or call 506-466-8347 to let him know how you can help!
Unsure if your membership is current? Feel free to contact John and ask. His team can make sure you’re all set to vote.
And be sure to share and follow this page for updates on his campaign and to learn about upcoming events.
Go John! And Vote John W!
Progressive Conservative MLA calls it quits at provincial level Brian Macdonald won't run again for legislature seat, but might try federal politics CBC News · Posted: May 28, 2018 6:07 PM AT | Last Updated: May 28 Brian Macdonald, a Progressive Conservative MLA, has announced he won't run in the Sept. 24 provincial election. (CBC)
New Brunswick's Progressive Conservative party is losing one of its highest-profile MLAs just months before the next provincial election.
Brian Macdonald says he won't be a candidate this fall and may instead jump into federal politics.
Calling the last year "my best year in politics," the two-term MLA said his decision has nothing to do with PC Leader Blaine Higgs, who beat Macdonald for the party leadership in 2016.
"It's been a really good year," Macdonald said. "I've had a strong voice in the legislature on issues that are really important to my heart.
"I also think it can be a challenge being in provincial politics. It's very small, it's very close, it's very tight, and on a personal basis, I want to move on."
Macdonald says he’s considering running for the federal Conservative nomination in New Brunswick Southwest, which includes part of the riding of Fredericton West-Hanwell, where he has been the MLA. (CBC)
Macdonald said he's considering running for the federal Conservative nomination in New Brunswick Southwest, a constituency that includes part of Macdonald's provincial riding of Fredericton West-Hanwell.
Health critic slams 'gutting' of top doctor's office
Blaine Higgs faces internal PC dissent over appointment
That decision would pit him against former Conservative MP John Williamson, who announced May 21 he'll also seek the nomination in the riding he represented from 2011 to 2015. Party members in the riding will nominate their candidate June 28.
Macdonald said he'll also consider running federally in Fredericton. The former soldier said he's also looking at job opportunities with national organizations that advocate for veterans.
"I'm looking for opportunities and considering a lot of options," he said.
Blaine Higgs wins N.B. PC leadership race on 3rd ballot
Tory leadership hopefuls scramble to be 'second choice' of rivals' supporters
Macdonald is the fifth candidate from the 2016 provincial PC leadership race to opt against running in this year's election under Higgs.
Macdonald said he is confident he would have won his riding again and the Tories will win the election Sept. 24, meaning he'd have a shot of becoming a minister.
But he said being a provincial politician "does wear on you and it does make you think about what the other options are. … If I go another four years in provincial politics, it concerns me that my options would be limited after that."
The 47-year-old also said the recent death of some friends made him realize he should pursue other opportunities when he can.
Macdonald's interest in federal politics has been well-known for years. He was a political assistant to former federal Defence Minister Peter MacKay and sought the federal Conservative nomination for Fredericton for the 2008 election.
After failing to win that nomination, he ran provincially in Fredericton-Silverwood in 2010 and was elected. He was re-elected in the newly created riding of Fredericton West-Hanwell in 2014, when he defeated then-NDP leader Dominic Cardy.
Macdonald ran for the leadership of the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Party but lost to Blaine Higgs. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
In 2016, Macdonald ran for the PC leadership, placing sixth on the first ballot out of seven candidates.
Macdonald said he doesn't think his departure will hurt the provincial party's chances of holding on to Fredericton West-Hanwell.
"It's going to be very attractive to a number of high-calibre candidates who are now beginning to come forward," he said.
