Scheuneman v. Canada, 2003 FCT 37

Date: 20030116

Docket: T-564-02

Neutral citation number: 2003 FCT 37

BETWEEN:

                                     ERIC SCHEUNEMAN

                                                                                                      Plaintiff

                                                    - and -

                              HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                    (Human Resources Development Canada)

                                                                                                  Defendant

                     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

HUGESSEN J.

[1]    In a communication with the Registry, the plaintiff sought to be relieved from the obligation of attending a pre-trial conference in person because of his alleged disability. The Court accordingly issued a Direction on November 27, 2002 in these terms:

Plaintiff is to serve and file written submissions on or before December 16, 2002 for the purpose of the pre-trial conference including a detailed estimate of number and types of witnesses and the time required by him for both evidence and argument at trial.

Defendant shall respond by serving and filing similar written submissions no later than January 6, 2003 after which the Court will determine whether or not it is appropriate to hold a pre-trial conference.

[2]    In his written submissions filed on November 28, 2002 in response to that Direction, the plaintiff alleges as follows:

5. The Plaintiff is unable to estimate time required at trial because:

a) the Plaintiff is not a lawyer and does not have sufficient experience; and

b) the Plaintiff respectfully requests a written hearing at trial to allow him his constitutional rights to legal justice by accommodation of his two disabilities of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and a stutter which prevent him from being able to speak or think properly or fully, especially under time or other pressures. Further, there are no witnesses or other evidence requiring an oral hearing...

  

[3]    By his action, the plaintiff seeks declarations that sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Canada Pension Plan Regulations contravene his rights under sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter. Besides a denial of the plaintiff's claims, the defendant has pleaded justification under section 1 of the Charter. It indicates that it wishes to call two witnesses.

[4]                 What the plaintiff is asking is to have the Court strike down several important legislative provisions without evidence, without a hearing and without even a pre-trial conference. This will not do. Even if there were evidence of the plaintiff's disability (and there is none) that would not entitle the plaintiff to preempt the defendant's right to call and examine witnesses and to have an oral hearing at the trial. The plaintiff himself cannot expect to have success in his action unless he is prepared to produce evidence and subject it to the usual adversarial scrutiny. The courts have many times repeated that they cannot and will not strike down legislation without the necessary factual matrix. The same is true of the justification defence under section 1. The plaintiff's lack of legal training does not give him any additional rights and if he insists upon representing himself, he must play by the same rules as everyone else. On the plaintiff's own showing, he is incapable of representing himself. In the absence of any evidence, the Court is unable to determine if he is under a "legal disability" within the meaning of Rules 115 and/or 121, but, at a minimum, it is clear that he cannot carry this matter any further without the assistance of a person who is physically, mentally and professionally capable of handling his case for him. That should normally be done by the appointment of a solicitor.

                                                  ORDER

The plaintiff is hereby directed to appoint a solicitor on or before March 3, 2003. Such solicitor shall within 21 days of appointment either file a further pre-trial conference memorandum in conformity with the Rules or bring such further motions on the plaintiff's behalf as he or she may advise.

      

                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                           Judge                      

Ottawa, Ontario

January 16, 2003

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                          TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

  

COURT FILE NO.:                   T-564-02

  

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  Eric Scheuneman v. Her Majesty the Queen

  

Direction of the Court dealt with in writing without the appearance of parties

  

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN

  

DATED:                                      January 16, 2003                                    

  

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

  

Eric Scheuneman

(acting on his own behalf)                                     FOR PLAINTIFF

  

Marie-Josée Montreuil                           FOR THE DEFENDANT

  

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

  

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                   FOR THE DEFENDANT