Date: 20221004
Docket: A-286-21
Citation: 2022 FCA 166
| CORAM:
|
GLEASON J.A.
MACTAVISH J.A.
MONAGHAN J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| JOHN TURMEL
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HIS MAJESTY THE KING
|
| Respondent
|
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2022.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2022.
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
MONAGHAN J.A.
|
Docket: A-286-21
Citation: 2022 FCA 166
| CORAM:
|
GLEASON J.A.
MACTAVISH J.A.
MONAGHAN J.A.
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| JOHN TURMEL
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| HIS MAJESTY THE KING
|
| Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on October 4, 2022).
MONAGHAN J.A.
[1] The appellant, John Turmel, appeals a decision of the Federal Court (2021 FC 1095) dismissing his appeal of an order of the Case Management Judge striking his statement of claim in its entirety, without leave to amend and with costs.
[2] The Federal Court followed this Court’s decision in Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215 (Hospira), and identified the appellate standard of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, as the standard to be applied in its review of the Case Management Judge’s order.
[3] Applying that standard, the Federal Court could find no reviewable error in the Case Management Judge’s decision, agreeing with her observations regarding the lack of facts necessary to support the appellant’s claims under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, her observations on the law, and her conclusion that the claim as drafted is an abuse of process.
[4] This Court can allow the appeal only if we are satisfied that the Federal Court made an error of law or a palpable and overriding error in refusing to interfere with the Case Management Judge’s decision: Hospira, at para. 84. Contrary to Mr. Turmel’s submission, it was not open to the Case Management Judge or the Federal Court to disregard the applicable law and it is similarly not open to us to do so.
[5] We see no error in the decision below and accordingly we will dismiss the appeal with costs, fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $1,500.00.
"K.A. Siobhan Monaghan"
Email this Content