Date: 20020410
Docket: T-188-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 404
Montréal, Quebec, April 10, 2002
Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
BETWEEN:
ANDRÉ SÉGUIN
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
Motion by the defendant for an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim.
[Rules 221(1)(a) and (b) and 369 of the Federal Court Rules (1998)]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] In my opinion the plaintiff's statement of claim should be struck out and the Court should dismiss his action without costs pursuant to Rule 22(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules (1998) ("the Rules"), for the following reasons.
[2] In his first conclusion the plaintiff asked the Court to re-authorize his escorted temporary absence program.
[3] Contrary to what was alleged by the plaintiff in his statement of claim, it appeared that an escorted temporary absence program was not authorized for him.
[4] Consequently, the plaintiff could not ask that his escorted temporary absence program be [TRANSLATION] "re-authorized".
[5] Also, the plaintiff on October 5, 2001 asked to be given an escorted temporary absence program.
[6] On December 27, 2001 the warden of the La Macaza Institution, who had the decision-making power with respect to granting such a program pursuant to s. 17 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, rejected the plaintiff's request.
[7] The plaintiff did not file a grievance against that decision.
[8] Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot ask this Court to judicially review this administrative decision, as he has not exhausted his internal remedies.
[9] The said conclusion must therefore be struck out in accordance with s. 221(1)(b) of the Rules.
[10] In his second conclusion the plaintiff asked that corrections be made following the issuing of an inmate offence report.
[11] The inmate offence report was issued to the inmate on December 3, 2001.
[12] On January 21, 2002 the independent chairperson heard Correctional Service of Canada v. Séguin and concluded that the said report should be entered in the plaintiff's file as an observation report.
[13] It appeared that the plaintiff did not dispute this administrative decision.
[14] As the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of this decision, the second conclusion in the plaintiff's statement of claim must be struck out in accordance with s. 221(1)(b) of the Rules.
[15] In the third conclusion the plaintiff claimed damages for negligence committed by the Correctional Service of Canada.
[16] Because it is established that the government can only be held liable if, and only if, the administrative actions allegedly giving rise to damages have been quashed, and in the case at bar, they were not, the plaintiff accordingly cannot claim damages.
[17] Also, the plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim that the administrative decision not to authorize an escorted temporary absence program for him was made as a result of the inmate offence report issued to him.
[18] It is clear from reading the document titled [TRANSLATION] "Recommendation/ Decision on Escorted Temporary Absence" that the fact that the plaintiff received an inmate offence report was not a factor taken into account by the decision-maker.
[19] Consequently, the latter conclusion should be struck out under the same paragraph of the Rules.
[20] Further, in this conclusion as in the two preceding ones, the plaintiff's statement of claim is far from complying with the drafting requirements contained in Rules 174 and 181 of the Rules. This is in itself a sufficient reason in the circumstances for also striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim.
[21] Additionally, the two replies filed by the plaintiff against this motion, in so far as they constitute [TRANSLATION] "notices of motion", are dismissed. The plaintiff's application for directions made on February 20, 2002 has become moot and will not be decided, in view of the conclusions arrived at above.
|
|
Richard Morneau
prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020410
Docket: T-188-02
Between:
ANDRÉ SÉGUIN Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-188-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDRÉ SÉGUIN
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: April 10, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
André Séguin for the plaintiff
Sébastien Gagné for the defendant
SOLICITOR OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada