---------- Original message ----------
From: Immigration Minister <ImmigrationMinister@
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:07:33 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Bruce McCulloch and Scott Lockhart I
just called Perhaps you fellas should ask the RCMP or the Premier or
Petey Baby MacKay if I am a Liar or Not?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your message to the Nova Scotia Office of Immigration.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest regards,
Minister’s Correspondence Unit
---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:07:42 +0000
Subject: RE: Attn Bruce McCulloch and Scott Lockhart I just called
Perhaps you fellas should ask the RCMP or the Premier or Petey Baby
MacKay if I am a Liar or Not?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:07:27 -0400
Subject: Attn Bruce McCulloch and Scott Lockhart I just called Perhaps
you fellas should ask the RCMP or the Premier or Petey Baby MacKay if
I am a Liar or Not?
To: ToryRushton2018@gmail.com, news@sixrivers.ca, bill@sixrivers.ca,
scottlockhart@bellaliant.net, bruce@mccenergy.ca,
gpns@greenpartyns.ca, tt@cs.dal.ca, Michael.Gorman@cbc.ca,
steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, "Andy.Fillmore"
<Andy.Fillmore@parl.gc.ca>, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca,
Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com
moraig@nsndp.ca, larryduchesne@nsndp.ca, davidwheeler@nsndp.ca,
"David.Coon"<David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy"
<Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant"<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
ImmigrationMinister@
rickard.mark@brunswicknews.com
ttracy <ttracy@clc-ctc.ca>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch
<jbosnitch@gmail.com>
Cc: David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
<PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, 15 <15@atlanticaparty.ca>, "Bill.Morneau"
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Me,Myself and I
David Amos
Published on Oct 27, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local
Campaign, Rogers TV
Rogers tv
Published on Oct 1, 2015
https://electionsnovascotia.
Nominated Candidates, to date:
Larry DUCHESNE Nova Scotia New Democratic Party (NDP)
Scott LOCKHART Nova Scotia Liberal Party (NSLP)
Bruce W. MCCULLOCH Green Party of Nova Scotia (GPNS)
Tory RUSHTON Progressive Conservative Association of
Nova Scotia (PC)
https://greenpartyns.ca/about/
http://greenpartyns.ca/
Bruce McCulloch to Run in Cumberland South for Green Party of Nova Scotia
May 21, 2018 By gpnsadmin Leave a Comment
Bruce McCulloch, P.Eng, MBA
Bruce McCulloch, an engineer who has long been active in the community
of Parrsboro, will be the Green Party of Nova Scotia candidate in the
Cumberland South by-election.
Bruce is a seasoned professional with a strong knowledge of energy
efficiency. He lived in Parrsboro while his children were growing up.
He served on the Ship’s Company theatre board for 18 years, and was an
active volunteer at Ottawa House museum. He is an investor in the Two
Island Brewery start-up.
“Cumberland South has great, resilient communities, and an excellent
quality of life,” Bruce says. “This, in spite of the struggle to
retain health professionals, and the trend of jobs disappearing and
young people leaving the area.”
Bruce looks forward to discussing how the values of the Green Party
align with the needs of the people of Cumberland South.
Recognizing some of the issues he has seen in the area, Bruce promises
to strengthen supports for seasonal workers and businesses. He aims to
create conditions to allow local businesses to flourish, including
ensuring high speed internet access and global market opportunity. He
wants to see Nova Scotia adopt the British Columbia model for
attracting doctors.
Bruce assures current and retired teachers and health care workers in
Cumberland South that he will strive to ensure a more transparent,
cooperative approach to labour negotiations.
Finally, Bruce notes, “We need to overcome the “turf warfare” between
the Atlantic provinces to see regulatory processes and services become
more streamlined, cost-effective and efficient. We need better ‘free
trade’ between provinces.”
Bruce previously ran in the area in the 2013 election.
PO Box 36044
5665 Spring Garden Road
Halifax NS B3J 3S9
Email: gpns@greenpartyns.ca
Bruce McCulloch, P.Eng. MBA
LEED Green Associate | MCC Energy Strategies
.277 Rutledge Street, Suite 109,
Bedford NS B4A 4M2
902-471-8665
bruce@mccenergy.ca.
Dr. Thomas Trappenberg
Professor Faculty of Computer Science
Dalhousie University
6050 University Avenue
PO BOX 15000
Halifax, NS B3H 4R2
Email: tt@cs.dal.ca
Phone: 902-494-3087
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 06:44:40 -0600
Subject: Re: The Hearing in the Federal Court on May 24th and the
elections in Antgonish Halifax Armdale and Cumberland South and
Atlantic Party's latest snobby nonsense
To: 15@atlanticaparty.ca, PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, 24@atlanticaparty.ca,
jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com
Cc: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com, moraig@nsndp.ca,
larryduchesne@nsndp.ca, davidwheeler@nsndp.ca,
ImmigrationMinister@
2@atlanticaparty.ca
Would you like to see a copy of my drivers licence? If so ask Premier
McNeil’s minions in Amherst for it
---------- Original message ----------
From: 15@atlanticaparty.ca
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 09:12:49 -0300
Subject: Re: Good Evening RE Halifax Armdale and Cumberland South Feel
free to call 902 800 0369
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Cc: 24@atlanticaparty.ca, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Mr David Amos
Thank you for contacting me.
1) Are you currently a resident and eligible voter in the Cumberland
South electoral district?
2) If you are in Cumberland South and would like to address issues that
concern the scope of the Provincial authority, please provide a short
point form outline of your questions on my own or the Atlantica's Party
policies.
I feel a frustration in your previous communications, however, dealing
with the wrong person will not help you get the issues resolved. If it
is something I can address personally, I will.
Thank you for your understanding
Michael "Thor" Lengies
Atlantica Party for Cumberland South
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
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.
Department of Justice
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
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
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
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)
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
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
http://www.sixrivers.ca/
Cumberland South NDP Ready for Fight
Cumberland South has added another candidate to the list of those who
await a provincial by-election call. The NDP once again named Larry
Duchesne as their candidate at a nomination meeting today in
Springhill.
The event was filled with a star-studded cast, including the Nova
Scotia Leader, Gary Burrill, former national NDP leader Alexa
McDonough, Truro/Bible Hill MLA, Lenore Zann, and a number of former
candidates from around the province.
(Photo - seated L to R: Gary Burrill, Alexa McDonough, standing L to
R: Lenore Zann, and Larry Duchesne)
Duchesne, a former teacher and newspaper reporter, was unopposed for
the nomination. He has carried the banner before in Cumberland South
and elsewhere in Nova Scotia, as well as a three year stint as NDP
leader in Prince Edward Island.
The provincial leader was the keynote speaker this afternoon. Burrill
admitted to certain disappointments in recent elections, but he said
there are defining moments in the world of politics and this
by-election could be one of those moments.
Burrill says Nova Scotians are facing “a moment of regret and remorse”
at the re-election of the McNeil government. He said during the last
election campaign, “Not a single one of us heard a single Liberal
candidate say anything about the abolition of school boards, not one
word.” Burrill added, “They have completely eradicated a whole level
of local/regional democratic government in our province.” He says, “It
was very similar to the Nova Scotia Health Authority where they shut
down all those local voices and created one, super centralized,
Halifax based health authority.” The NDP leader often suggests the
Liberal goal is a “Halifax city state”.
The new candidate was grateful to all those who attended the meeting.
Duchesne suggested “winning is not out of the question at all. When
parties concentrate their resources, it makes a big difference.”
Speaking of the McNeil Liberals, he noted “how Conservative they are,
but they are not progressive.”
Duchesne says Cumberland South needs representation that truly cares
for people. He said, “In Cumberland South we have some of the oldest
and some of the poorest people in the province. If we had a
progressive government we stand to benefit a lot.” He added, “Instead,
from the Liberal Government, we’re getting disempowerment,
depopulation, and joblessness.”
Duchesne says, “When you look at the potential of tidal power, we have
to make sure that control stays as local as possible so the benefits
stay local.”
He also addressed concerns for the environment, geo-thermal potential
in Springhill, further development in farming and forestry. He says,
“Potential turns to reality when you have people working to identify
opportunities and see them through.”
Duchesne is sporting an eye patch to protect a detached retina. He
will soon go in for surgery and hopes there will be no patch during
the election campaign.
The NDP nomination follows earlier nominations by the Conservatives
and the Atlantic Party. In fact, the only party that is not yet ready
for a by-election is the Liberal Party. Premier Stephen McNeil has the
exclusive right to determine when an election call. With that
privilege, he gets to decide when the time is right for his party to
hold a nomination meeting.
Six Rivers News,
P.O. Box 364
Pugwash, NS
B0K 1L0
Phone 902-614-3000 •
email news@sixrivers.ca
General Manager, Bill Martin bill@sixrivers.ca
Reporter, Larry Duchesne 902-686-3735
or larry@sixrivers.ca
Springhill Headquarters is Open
The Coffee is on, the Cookies are out and our Campaign Headquarters is
now open at 69 Main St Springhill NS.
Drop in for a visit, drink some coffee and have a snack. Or If you
want to volunteer, come in anytime.
Ask away with any questions or concerns you may have. Pick up a pin or
door knocker with info. Or get on the sign list.
We are ready to go with the upcoming bi-election.
902-597-TORY (8679)
ToryRushton2018@gmail.com
Call (902) 597-8200
@ScottLockhartNS
scottlockhart@bellaliant.net
http://www.scottlockhart.ca
Hometown
Springhill, NS
About
As a life long resident of Springhill, I am committed to making sure
Cumberland South’s voice is heard at the Government table. Let’s get
it done.
Cell (902) 297-1500
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 10:38:37 -0400
Subject: Attn Chief Electoral Officer, Richard Temporale I just called
I must ask why are you still holding to my money from the 2006
election?
To: elections@novascotia.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Cumberland South By-election
Cumberland South By-election information will be posted here. Most
recent information will appear at the top of the page. Under the House
of Assembly Act, a writ must be issued by July 24, six months from the
date the vacancy occurred.
Registered Candidates (to date)
(Candidate names will be added as registrations are received)
Tory Rushton Progressive Conservative Association of Nova Scotia (PC)
Larry Duchesne Nova Scotia New Democratic Party (NDP)
Scott Lockhart Nova Scotia Liberal Party (NSLP)
Contact Elections Nova Scotia
Street Address
7037 Mumford Road, Suite 6
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3L 2J1
Mailing Address
PO Box 2246
Halifax, NS.
B3J 3C8
Telephone
902-424-8584
1-800-565-1504 (Toll free)
902-424-7475 (TTY)
1-866-774-7074 (Toll Free TTY)
902-424-6622 (Fax)
Email
elections@novascotia.ca
Cumberland South By-election – Nomination Fee Waived
Media Release - April 18, 2018
Chief Electoral Officer, Richard Temporale, is notifying registered
parties and prospective candidates that, for the upcoming Cumberland
South by-election, the nomination deposit will not be required as part
of the nomination process outlined in Section 65(2)(b) of the Act.
Under Section 5(r) of the Act, the Chief Electoral Officer may modify
any provision of this Act to permit its use at a by-election.
Following the 40th Provincial General Election, several recommended
changes to the Elections Act were made in Volume II: Report on the
Conduct of the May 30, 2017 Provincial General Election and
Recommendations for Legislative Change, dated December 2017.
The recommendation that the $200 candidate nomination deposit
requirement be removed received unanimous support from the members of
the Election Commission who represent the three parties with two or
more elected members in the House of Assembly.
The following is an excerpt from Volume II:
Candidate Deposits
On October 25, 2017, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta rendered
its decision in Szuchewycz v. Canada (Attorney General), stating that
the $1,000 deposit requirement for prospective candidates in federal
elections infringes on section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which provides that: “Every citizen of Canada has the right
to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a
legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” The
CEO believes that this decision applies to Nova Scotia and invalidates
Section 65 or the Elections Act and, as a result, prospective
candidates will no longer be required to deposit $200 as part of their
nomination requirements.
Recommendation 9: The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the
candidate’s nomination deposit requirement be removed from the
legislation.
http://davidraymondamos3.
Wednesday, 16 May 2018
Yo Matt DeCourcey while you are explaining things to John Brassard why
not explain Federal Court File No T-1557-15 as well?
From: Immigration Minister <ImmigrationMinister@
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:07:33 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Bruce McCulloch and Scott Lockhart I
just called Perhaps you fellas should ask the RCMP or the Premier or
Petey Baby MacKay if I am a Liar or Not?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for your message to the Nova Scotia Office of Immigration.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest regards,
Minister’s Correspondence Unit
---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:07:42 +0000
Subject: RE: Attn Bruce McCulloch and Scott Lockhart I just called
Perhaps you fellas should ask the RCMP or the Premier or Petey Baby
MacKay if I am a Liar or Not?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:07:27 -0400
Subject: Attn Bruce McCulloch and Scott Lockhart I just called Perhaps
you fellas should ask the RCMP or the Premier or Petey Baby MacKay if
I am a Liar or Not?
To: ToryRushton2018@gmail.com, news@sixrivers.ca, bill@sixrivers.ca,
scottlockhart@bellaliant.net, bruce@mccenergy.ca,
gpns@greenpartyns.ca, tt@cs.dal.ca, Michael.Gorman@cbc.ca,
steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca, "Andy.Fillmore"
<Andy.Fillmore@parl.gc.ca>, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca,
Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com
moraig@nsndp.ca, larryduchesne@nsndp.ca, davidwheeler@nsndp.ca,
"David.Coon"<David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "Dominic.Cardy"
<Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant"<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
ImmigrationMinister@
rickard.mark@brunswicknews.com
ttracy <ttracy@clc-ctc.ca>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch
<jbosnitch@gmail.com>
Cc: David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
<PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, 15 <15@atlanticaparty.ca>, "Bill.Morneau"
<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Me,Myself and I
David Amos
Published on Oct 27, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local
Campaign, Rogers TV
Rogers tv
Published on Oct 1, 2015
https://electionsnovascotia.
Nominated Candidates, to date:
Larry DUCHESNE Nova Scotia New Democratic Party (NDP)
Scott LOCKHART Nova Scotia Liberal Party (NSLP)
Bruce W. MCCULLOCH Green Party of Nova Scotia (GPNS)
Tory RUSHTON Progressive Conservative Association of
Nova Scotia (PC)
https://greenpartyns.ca/about/
http://greenpartyns.ca/
Bruce McCulloch to Run in Cumberland South for Green Party of Nova Scotia
May 21, 2018 By gpnsadmin Leave a Comment
Bruce McCulloch, P.Eng, MBA
Bruce McCulloch, an engineer who has long been active in the community
of Parrsboro, will be the Green Party of Nova Scotia candidate in the
Cumberland South by-election.
Bruce is a seasoned professional with a strong knowledge of energy
efficiency. He lived in Parrsboro while his children were growing up.
He served on the Ship’s Company theatre board for 18 years, and was an
active volunteer at Ottawa House museum. He is an investor in the Two
Island Brewery start-up.
“Cumberland South has great, resilient communities, and an excellent
quality of life,” Bruce says. “This, in spite of the struggle to
retain health professionals, and the trend of jobs disappearing and
young people leaving the area.”
Bruce looks forward to discussing how the values of the Green Party
align with the needs of the people of Cumberland South.
Recognizing some of the issues he has seen in the area, Bruce promises
to strengthen supports for seasonal workers and businesses. He aims to
create conditions to allow local businesses to flourish, including
ensuring high speed internet access and global market opportunity. He
wants to see Nova Scotia adopt the British Columbia model for
attracting doctors.
Bruce assures current and retired teachers and health care workers in
Cumberland South that he will strive to ensure a more transparent,
cooperative approach to labour negotiations.
Finally, Bruce notes, “We need to overcome the “turf warfare” between
the Atlantic provinces to see regulatory processes and services become
more streamlined, cost-effective and efficient. We need better ‘free
trade’ between provinces.”
Bruce previously ran in the area in the 2013 election.
PO Box 36044
5665 Spring Garden Road
Halifax NS B3J 3S9
Email: gpns@greenpartyns.ca
Bruce McCulloch, P.Eng. MBA
LEED Green Associate | MCC Energy Strategies
.277 Rutledge Street, Suite 109,
Bedford NS B4A 4M2
902-471-8665
bruce@mccenergy.ca.
Dr. Thomas Trappenberg
Professor Faculty of Computer Science
Dalhousie University
6050 University Avenue
PO BOX 15000
Halifax, NS B3H 4R2
Email: tt@cs.dal.ca
Phone: 902-494-3087
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 06:44:40 -0600
Subject: Re: The Hearing in the Federal Court on May 24th and the
elections in Antgonish Halifax Armdale and Cumberland South and
Atlantic Party's latest snobby nonsense
To: 15@atlanticaparty.ca, PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, 24@atlanticaparty.ca,
jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
Peter.MacKay@bakermckenzie.com
Cc: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com, moraig@nsndp.ca,
larryduchesne@nsndp.ca, davidwheeler@nsndp.ca,
ImmigrationMinister@
2@atlanticaparty.ca
Would you like to see a copy of my drivers licence? If so ask Premier
McNeil’s minions in Amherst for it
---------- Original message ----------
From: 15@atlanticaparty.ca
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 09:12:49 -0300
Subject: Re: Good Evening RE Halifax Armdale and Cumberland South Feel
free to call 902 800 0369
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Cc: 24@atlanticaparty.ca, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Mr David Amos
Thank you for contacting me.
1) Are you currently a resident and eligible voter in the Cumberland
South electoral district?
2) If you are in Cumberland South and would like to address issues that
concern the scope of the Provincial authority, please provide a short
point form outline of your questions on my own or the Atlantica's Party
policies.
I feel a frustration in your previous communications, however, dealing
with the wrong person will not help you get the issues resolved. If it
is something I can address personally, I will.
Thank you for your understanding
Michael "Thor" Lengies
Atlantica Party for Cumberland South
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>
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.
Department of Justice
On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
> ilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>> 6
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>
http://davidraymondamos3.
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
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Amos v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2017-10-30
Neutral citation
2017 FCA 213
File numbers
A-48-16
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)
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
For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
http://www.sixrivers.ca/
Cumberland South NDP Ready for Fight
Cumberland South has added another candidate to the list of those who
await a provincial by-election call. The NDP once again named Larry
Duchesne as their candidate at a nomination meeting today in
Springhill.
The event was filled with a star-studded cast, including the Nova
Scotia Leader, Gary Burrill, former national NDP leader Alexa
McDonough, Truro/Bible Hill MLA, Lenore Zann, and a number of former
candidates from around the province.
(Photo - seated L to R: Gary Burrill, Alexa McDonough, standing L to
R: Lenore Zann, and Larry Duchesne)
Duchesne, a former teacher and newspaper reporter, was unopposed for
the nomination. He has carried the banner before in Cumberland South
and elsewhere in Nova Scotia, as well as a three year stint as NDP
leader in Prince Edward Island.
The provincial leader was the keynote speaker this afternoon. Burrill
admitted to certain disappointments in recent elections, but he said
there are defining moments in the world of politics and this
by-election could be one of those moments.
Burrill says Nova Scotians are facing “a moment of regret and remorse”
at the re-election of the McNeil government. He said during the last
election campaign, “Not a single one of us heard a single Liberal
candidate say anything about the abolition of school boards, not one
word.” Burrill added, “They have completely eradicated a whole level
of local/regional democratic government in our province.” He says, “It
was very similar to the Nova Scotia Health Authority where they shut
down all those local voices and created one, super centralized,
Halifax based health authority.” The NDP leader often suggests the
Liberal goal is a “Halifax city state”.
The new candidate was grateful to all those who attended the meeting.
Duchesne suggested “winning is not out of the question at all. When
parties concentrate their resources, it makes a big difference.”
Speaking of the McNeil Liberals, he noted “how Conservative they are,
but they are not progressive.”
Duchesne says Cumberland South needs representation that truly cares
for people. He said, “In Cumberland South we have some of the oldest
and some of the poorest people in the province. If we had a
progressive government we stand to benefit a lot.” He added, “Instead,
from the Liberal Government, we’re getting disempowerment,
depopulation, and joblessness.”
Duchesne says, “When you look at the potential of tidal power, we have
to make sure that control stays as local as possible so the benefits
stay local.”
He also addressed concerns for the environment, geo-thermal potential
in Springhill, further development in farming and forestry. He says,
“Potential turns to reality when you have people working to identify
opportunities and see them through.”
Duchesne is sporting an eye patch to protect a detached retina. He
will soon go in for surgery and hopes there will be no patch during
the election campaign.
The NDP nomination follows earlier nominations by the Conservatives
and the Atlantic Party. In fact, the only party that is not yet ready
for a by-election is the Liberal Party. Premier Stephen McNeil has the
exclusive right to determine when an election call. With that
privilege, he gets to decide when the time is right for his party to
hold a nomination meeting.
Six Rivers News,
P.O. Box 364
Pugwash, NS
B0K 1L0
Phone 902-614-3000 •
email news@sixrivers.ca
General Manager, Bill Martin bill@sixrivers.ca
Reporter, Larry Duchesne 902-686-3735
or larry@sixrivers.ca
Springhill Headquarters is Open
The Coffee is on, the Cookies are out and our Campaign Headquarters is
now open at 69 Main St Springhill NS.
Drop in for a visit, drink some coffee and have a snack. Or If you
want to volunteer, come in anytime.
Ask away with any questions or concerns you may have. Pick up a pin or
door knocker with info. Or get on the sign list.
We are ready to go with the upcoming bi-election.
902-597-TORY (8679)
ToryRushton2018@gmail.com
Call (902) 597-8200
@ScottLockhartNS
scottlockhart@bellaliant.net
http://www.scottlockhart.ca
Hometown
Springhill, NS
About
As a life long resident of Springhill, I am committed to making sure
Cumberland South’s voice is heard at the Government table. Let’s get
it done.
Cell (902) 297-1500
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 10:38:37 -0400
Subject: Attn Chief Electoral Officer, Richard Temporale I just called
I must ask why are you still holding to my money from the 2006
election?
To: elections@novascotia.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Cumberland South By-election
Cumberland South By-election information will be posted here. Most
recent information will appear at the top of the page. Under the House
of Assembly Act, a writ must be issued by July 24, six months from the
date the vacancy occurred.
Registered Candidates (to date)
(Candidate names will be added as registrations are received)
Tory Rushton Progressive Conservative Association of Nova Scotia (PC)
Larry Duchesne Nova Scotia New Democratic Party (NDP)
Scott Lockhart Nova Scotia Liberal Party (NSLP)
Contact Elections Nova Scotia
Street Address
7037 Mumford Road, Suite 6
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3L 2J1
Mailing Address
PO Box 2246
Halifax, NS.
B3J 3C8
Telephone
902-424-8584
1-800-565-1504 (Toll free)
902-424-7475 (TTY)
1-866-774-7074 (Toll Free TTY)
902-424-6622 (Fax)
elections@novascotia.ca
Cumberland South By-election – Nomination Fee Waived
Media Release - April 18, 2018
Chief Electoral Officer, Richard Temporale, is notifying registered
parties and prospective candidates that, for the upcoming Cumberland
South by-election, the nomination deposit will not be required as part
of the nomination process outlined in Section 65(2)(b) of the Act.
Under Section 5(r) of the Act, the Chief Electoral Officer may modify
any provision of this Act to permit its use at a by-election.
Following the 40th Provincial General Election, several recommended
changes to the Elections Act were made in Volume II: Report on the
Conduct of the May 30, 2017 Provincial General Election and
Recommendations for Legislative Change, dated December 2017.
The recommendation that the $200 candidate nomination deposit
requirement be removed received unanimous support from the members of
the Election Commission who represent the three parties with two or
more elected members in the House of Assembly.
The following is an excerpt from Volume II:
Candidate Deposits
On October 25, 2017, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta rendered
its decision in Szuchewycz v. Canada (Attorney General), stating that
the $1,000 deposit requirement for prospective candidates in federal
elections infringes on section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which provides that: “Every citizen of Canada has the right
to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a
legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” The
CEO believes that this decision applies to Nova Scotia and invalidates
Section 65 or the Elections Act and, as a result, prospective
candidates will no longer be required to deposit $200 as part of their
nomination requirements.
Recommendation 9: The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that the
candidate’s nomination deposit requirement be removed from the
legislation.
http://davidraymondamos3.
Wednesday, 16 May 2018
Yo Matt DeCourcey while you are explaining things to John Brassard why
not explain Federal Court File No T-1557-15 as well?