Date: 19980903
Docket: T-1212-98
BETWEEN:
PATRICK ELLIS
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD A.C.J.:
[1] The plaintiff has commenced an action against the defendant by statement of claim and now seeks, by way of two motions, certain relief and orders arising out of his action. The defendant has brought a motion for an order striking out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim dated June 18, 1998, and the plaintiff's further amended statement of claim dated July 21, 1998, and dismissing the action on the grounds that the first amended statement of claim discloses no cause of action and that the second
Page: 2
amended statement of claim deals with matters concerning officials and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario.
[2] Since I have decided to dismiss the plaintiffs action and strike out both amended statements of claim on the grounds advanced by the defendant, I need not deal with the motions brought by the defendant and they are accordingly dismissed.
[3] The first amended statement of claim contains no facts but merely bare assertions about the structure and operation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms followed by a prayer for relief.
[4] Rule 221(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 provides that this Court may order that a pleading be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
[5] On a motion to strike a statement of claim, the question is whether the facts pleaded disclose a reasonable cause of action, that is, a cause of action with some chance of success.
[6] A claim containing bare assertions but no facts on which to base the assertions discloses no cause of action.
Page: 3
[7] The amended statement of claim does not contain any facts in support of the plaintiffs assertions; presents no facts which establish a cause of action known in law; and therefore has no chance of succeeding.
[8] The plaintiff has pleaded some facts in the second amended statement of claim.
[9] However, every allegation raised in the plaintiff's further amended statement of claim deals with matters concerning officials and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario, including but not limited to the Attorney General of Ontario.
[10] Subsection 17(1) of the Federal Court Act when read with subsection 2(1) makes it clear that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an action only against Her majesty in right of Canada.
[11] Accordingly, the two amended statements of claim are struck out and the action is dismissed. It follows that the plaintiff's motions are also dismissed.
J. Richard Associate Chief Justice
Ottawa, Ontario September 3, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1212-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Patrick Ellis v.
Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: August 31, 1008
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RICHARD, A.C.J. DATED: September 3, 1998
APPEARANCES
Patrick Ellis FOR PLAINTIFF
Richard Kramer FOR DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Patrick Ellis ON HIS OWN BEHALF North York, Ontario
T
Morris Rosenberg FOR DEFENDANT Deputy Attorney General of Canada