Date: 20040209
Docket: T-1890-02
Citation: 2004 FC 208
Ottawa, Ontario, the 9th day of February 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël
BETWEEN:
MICHEL LALIBERTÉ
CORRECTIONS OFFICER
Applicant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the applicant appealing an order by Prothonotary Morneau dated December 16, 2003, made pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules).
[2] The applicant represented himself and in his motion maintained that Prothonotary Morneau:
- should have remained impartial, thus insinuating that he was not;
- made a value judgment on the applicant's intentions when he wrote that the application to amend was a [translation] "disguised attempt to . . ."
and he added with respect to the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada:
- [translation] "the Attorney General of Canada tried to manipulate the Court by his subversive remarks".
[3] The applicant's statements regarding the prothonotary and the Attorney General of Canada are serious and could damage their reputations.
[4] Additionally, I find that the statements are contained in the motion but are not supported by an affidavit as required in Rule 363.
[5] The motion is vitiated prima facie, as there is no affidavit providing evidence of the applicant's statements. Accordingly, it is inadmissible and should be dismissed for this reason alone.
[6] Having said that, I note that the applicant by his motion of December 4, 2003, wished to amend his statement of claim to include Charter provisions, without specifying the amendments to be made.
[7] In his order dated December 16, 2003, Prothonotary Morneau dismissed the application to amend for vagueness, but further noted that it was an indirect means of reopening another of his orders (dated October 6, 2003) which disposed of the application. The applicant appealed the order of October 6, 2003 and, in a judgment dated November 4, 2003, Lemieux J. dismissed the appeal, concluding that the matter was res judicata.
[8] Having reviewed the memorandums of the parties and the documents in support thereof, and in particular the judgment of my colleague Lemieux J., I can only come to the same conclusion, namely that the motion is an indirect means of reopening matters discussed at the pre-trial conference and that the application to amend is vague and unspecific. The applicant has once again raised the same question which was already decided by my colleague in the instant motion on appeal: the matter is therefore res judicata.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The motion on appeal from the decision of Prothonotary Morneau dated December 16, 2003 is dismissed with costs.
"Simon Noël"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C Tr, LLL
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1890-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHEL LALIBERTÉ v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NOËL
DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 2004
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
MICHEL LALIBERTÉ THE APPLICANT FOR HIMSELF
MARC RIBIERO FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHEL LALIBERTÉ THE APPLICANT FOR HIMSELF
1390 Degenève
Drummondville, Quebec
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada