Docket: T-142-22
Citation: 2023 FC 36
Ottawa, Ontario, January 10, 2023
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING |
BETWEEN: |
HARVEY ADAM PIERROT |
Plaintiff |
and |
HIS MAJESTY THE KING |
Defendant |
ORDER AND REASONS
[1] Canada moves to stay this proceeding [Pierrot] on the basis that the claims asserted fall within two certified class actions: Greenwood and Gray v His Majesty the King (Federal Court File T-1201-18) [Greenwood] and Association des membres de la police montée du Québec Inc et al v His Majesty the King (Québec Superior Court File 500-06-000820-163) [AMPMQ]. In addition, it submits that Pierrot is entirely duplicative of the proposed class action in Hudson v The King (Federal Court File T-723-20) [Hudson].
[2] This motion was heard immediately following the hearing of Canada’s motion in Hudson seeking an order staying it on the basis that the claims asserted fall within two certified class actions: Greenwood and AMPMQ. Many of the submissions made on this motion were also made on the Hudson motion.
[3] Paragraph 2 of the Amended Statement of Claim in Hudson describes the nature of that action as follows:
This action concerns systemic racism in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion directed at racialized individuals who work for or with the RCMP.
[4] Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim in Pierrot describes the nature of this action as follows:
This action concerns systemic racism within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the “RCMP”). As a consequence of this systemic racism, Indigenous RCMP members (including regular members, civilian members, and special constable members) and reservists (collectively, “RCMP Members and Reservists”) were subjected to racism and race-based harassment and discrimination in the RCMP workplace and were treated differently than non-indigenous RCMP Members and Reservists.
[5] Both Hudson and Pierrot base the action on systemic racism whereas, as is described in the Reasons for dismissing the motion for a stay in Hudson, Greenwood and AMPMQ appear to address acts of direct and overt discrimination.
[6] For the reasons issued in Hudson v Canada, 2023 FC 35, dismissing the Hudson motion for a stay, this motion for a stay based on the proceedings in Greenwood and AMPMQ, will likewise be dismissed.
[7] Canada’s motion to stay Pierrot on the basis that it asserts an identical cause of action to Hudson is more compelling. However, at the hearing of this motion, counsel for Mr. Pierrot agreed that his action would be held in abeyance pending a final determination in Hudson. There was no objection noted from Canada to issuing a stay pending a final determination in Hudson, and it shall be so ordered.
[8] Accordingly, Canada’s motion to stay Pierrot is allowed, but the order staying this action is limited to a stay pending a final determination in Hudson.
Email this Content