Date: 19980430
Docket: T-582-98
BETWEEN:
INMATES OF MOUNTAIN PRISON,
Applicant,
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
JOHN A. HARGRAVE,
PROTHONOTARY
[1] The Defendant moves to strike out this action, under what is now Rule 221, on the basis that it contains no reasonable cause of action or is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. This is a serious remedy for, subject to the possibility of amendment, it would deny a plaintiff, or in this instance a group of plaintiffs collectively called the Inmates of Mountain Prison, their day in court. Because it is such a serious remedy the onus which the Defendant must satisfy is a heavy one. The Court will only strike pleadings in plain and obvious cases where it is beyond doubt that the plaintiff will not succeed where the issue is the disclosure of a reasonable cause of action: see for example [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735">Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735 at 740, Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 at 486 and Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 959 at 967 and following. In an instance in which the issue is whether a pleading is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse, the test is at least as stringent.
THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
[2] The Statement of Claim in this action brought by the group of inmates called the Inmates of Mountain Prison, is lengthy. It is made up, almost entirely, of bare assertions, without particulars or specific facts, dealing with a very broad spectrum of complaints. These complaints include arbitrary enforcement of prison rules; irrelevant prison programs; cruel and unusual punishment; ineffective grievance procedure; obstruction of justice when prisoners wish to lay criminal charges; charter breaches; invalid entries in prison files; and staff who are said to be ignorant of their duties and of the prison regulations and guidelines. The inmates complain of a lack of expertise, of arrogance, of malice and of ignorance on the part of case management officers and of those in positions of authority, resulting in, among other things, improper and arbitrary implementation of rules.
[3] The Plaintiffs goes on to ask for many different types of relief. To touch on just a few items, the inmates seek orders that Corrections Canada be held responsible for failing to hold prison administrators, of every prison in Canada, accountable; appointment of an independent body to investigate the contents of each prisoner's file; removal of information from inmates' files; punitive and exemplary damages; and protection from retaliatory actions. The Statement of Claim and the relief sought are so broad and so general that they might have been drafted by a committee after consulting with individuals each with their own perspectives and requirements.
CONSIDERATION
[4] In the present instance, taking the facts as proven, the inmates, individually or perhaps some groups of inmates, may have causes of action. For that reason I am not prepared to strike out the Statement of Claim for want of a reasonable cause of action. Rather the difficulty lies in a lack of particularity in drafting the Statement of Claim and in the designation of the Plaintiff entity.
[5] The Statement of Claim is so general and so bereft of specifics, including names and dates, as to prevent the Defendant from making either proper investigation or proper response. The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed several similar statements of claim in Murray v. Public Service Commission (1978) 21 N.R. 230. The Court of Appeal noted that such statements of claim were fundamentally vexatious in that they revealed insufficient facts to show the basis for the claim, thus making it impossible for a defendant to answer the claim or for a court to regulate the proceedings (p. 236). Such a vexatious proceeding will not lead to any practical result. That is the situation here, for the Statement of Claim is so general and all-encompassing, yet so bereft of particulars, that the Defendant would be unable to draft an answer.
[6] The Statement of Claim also suffers from a second fatal defect. It is at first reading confusing. I have again read through the Statement of Claim with a view to giving the Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. The Statement of Claim contains so many different allegations, without any specifics and so many different types of relief, many of which are difficult to connect to the Statement of Claim, that it would be near impossible for a Court to regulate the trial of the matter or to transmute the allegations into remedies. As such it is an abuse of the system. The Statement of Claim is therefore struck out.
[7] I have considered whether the Statement of Claim might be salvaged by amendment, for a Statement of Claim ought not to be struck out so long as there is a scintilla of a legitimate cause of action. Here I have, among other things, considered the Plaintiff's response to the Crown's motion, entitled "Submissions in Support for Cause of Action - Motion to Amend". There might in this instance be many causes of action if the Statement of Claim were presented by separate individuals, each in their own action, dealing with one or more specific matters for which appropriate particulars were set out. However this is such a lengthy, broad and general Statement of Claim that no amendment, short of abandoning most of it and concentrating on one or two related and particularized incidents, might be of any help.
[8] There is yet another reason why the Statement of Claim ought to be struck out without leave to amend. The Plaintiff, referred to in the Statement of Claim as the Applicant, does not appear to be an association of any sort, but rather is a group of inmates initially said to be represented by two persons signing the Statement of Claim and subsequently by some seventy-five inmates. Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules defines a plaintiff to include a person on whose behalf an action is commenced. A person, as defined in the Rules, may include an unincorporated association and a partnership. The "Inmates of Mountain Prison" does not fall within any entity which might, as a group, without further elaboration, sue or be sued. Nor, given the diverse and broad spectrum of allegations, claims and remedies sought, is this a proceeding which could, by amendment, be converted to a class action with one or more named plaintiffs representing the inmates of Mountain Prison. An amendment would be of no assistance.
CONCLUSION
[9] Those who drafted the present Statement of Claim put a good deal of work into the project. Unfortunately the work was misguided in that the Statement of Claim is a large collection of general and vague bare assertions without specific facts. It does not contain enough particulars either to allow the Defendant any reasonable opportunity to answer it or to allow the Court to properly regulate the action. It is vexatious in that it will not lead to any practical result. Amendment of such a broad Statement of Claim, representing the views and claims of a large number of inmates with differing interests, would be of no assistance.
[10] Should individual inmates wish to pursue their claims and difficulties, once they have run through the prison grievance procedure, they might consider individual claims well documented with particulars so as to allow the Crown to make a reasonable assessment of and response to answer the pleading.
[11] The Crown has not sought costs. None are awarded.
(Sgd.) "John A. Hargrave"
Prothonotary
Vancouver, British Columbia
30 April 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: T-582-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: INMATES OF MOUNTAIN PRISON,
Applicant,
Defendant.
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
REASONS FOR ORDER OF: JOHN A. HARGRAVE, PROTHONOTARY
dated April 30, 1998
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Neale Burton for Applicant |
Ms. Donnaree Nygard for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Mr. Neale Burton for Applicant |
George Thomson for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content