Date: 19980721
Docket: T-253-98
BETWEEN:
EMILE MARGUERITA MARCUS MENNES,
Applicant,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
representing Her Majesty's Governor in Council
under Section 749(2) of the Criminal Code and
Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
JOHN A. HARGRAVE,
PROTHONOTARY
[1] I have been requested to examine a motion record which Mr. Mennes wishes to file, taking into account the Chief Justice's Direction of 7 May 1992. The Direction provides, in part, "... any document that Mr. Mennes submits for filing should not be filed without first submitting it to a prothonotary for examination as to whether it contains scandalous, insulting or abusive matter which should not be permitted to be placed on a court file.".
[2] Much of the material which Mr. Mennes now seeks to file is irrelevant. However I am not required to deal with relevance at this point, but only to determine if the material is scandalous, insulting or abusive, those being the pertinent limitations.
[3] A scandalous pleading or document includes one which improperly casts a derogatory light on a person's moral character. A document which, without any reasonable grounds, impugns the moral character of Crown counsel is a scandalous document: see for example Steiner v. Canada (1997) 122 F.T.R. 187 at 191.
[4] The word "insulting" should be given its ordinary meaning. Further, whether a thing is insulting is a question of fact: see for example Brutus v. Cozens [1973] A.C. 854, a decision of the House of Lords. I would particulary refer in Lord Reed's Judgment at page 862:
| "We were referred to a number of dictionary meanings of 'insult' such as treating with insolence or contempt or indignity or derision or dishonour or offensive disrespect. Many other things otherwise unobjectionable may be said or done in an insulting way. There can be no definition. But an ordinary sensible man knows an insult when he sees or hears it." (emphasis added). |
|
[5] There are a number of different approaches I might take to the meaning of abuse. For example, it is interchangeable with frivolous or vexatious: see The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court by I.H. Jacobs, [1970] Current Legal Problems 21 at 41. The word may be used to describe a proceeding which works an injustice. It may refer to unhelpful intemperate invective as was the case in Vojic v. Minister of National Revenue (1988) 18 F.T.R. 221 at 225. Finally it may be an abuse of proceedings and here I would refer to a passage from Adams v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1995) 174 N.R. 314, a decision of Mr. Justice Hugessen of the Federal Court of Appeal who wrote:
| "The day has passed when courts could allow to litigants the luxury of being at their beck and call. Courts are public institutions for the resolution of disputes and cost substantial public money. Court congestion and delay is a serious public concern.". |
|
Mr. Justice Hugessen went on to point out that persons who launch proceedings "... for their own private purposes may be called to account for their waste and abuse of a public resource." (pp. 317 and 318).
[6] I have kept these definitions in mind when examining the material Mr. Mennes wishes to file: the material runs afoul of a number of the definitions. However I do not see it as my job either to edit the material with black pencil so it may be filed, or to completely deny Mr. Mennes access to the court. Rather, the material, in its present form, is not to be filed. It may be filed by Mr. Mennes, should he wish to do so, by omitting various passages. I now turn to the passages which are objectionable and which must be deleted from the material Mr. Mennes has tendered in opposition to the Crown's motion to set aside or strike out the originating notice of motion.
[7] The following scandalous material shall be removed from the Applicant's forty page motion record dated 25 June 1998:
| 1. All of section 8 at pp. 3 and 4; |
|
| 3. All of Section A, including the heading, at p. 16; |
|
| 4. All of Section 11, including the heading, at pp. 22 and 23; |
|
| 5. All of Section 19, including the heading, at p. 25; |
|
| 6. All of the words after the 1998 date in the last line of Section 33 at p. 31; |
|
| 7. Subsection b of Section 34 at p. 32; and |
|
| 8. All of Rules 46, 467 and 472 at pp. 38 and 39. |
|
[8] All references throughout to "'counsel' Workun" shall be removed as they are insulting: it is sufficient for Mr. Mennes to refer to the Respondent, not personally to counsel.
[9] The following portions of the material shall also be removed before the motion record of Mr. Mennes may be accepted by the registry:
| 1. All of paragraphs 9 and 10 at p. 4; |
|
| 2. All of Section 7, including the heading, at pp. 19 and 20; |
|
| 3. All of Section 16, including the heading, at p. 24; |
|
| 4. All of Section 30, including the heading, at p. 29; |
|
| 5. The portions of Rules 2 and 65 referred to at p. 35; and |
|
| 6. The portions of Rules 364(2) referred to at p. 36. |
|
These sections are struck out as they go beyond being irrelevant. These sections are an abuse of proceedings, and a waste of both the court's time and the taxpayers' money.
[10] Mr. Mennes may retender the motion record, deleting the material which I have held to be objectionable, within thirty days. In the event that the required changes have not been made to the retendered material the registry shall return the material to Mr. Mennes and place the Crown's motion, to set aside the proceedings or to strike out the originating notice of motion, before a judge or prothonotary so that it may be dealt with promptly.
(Sgd.) "John A. Hargrave"
Prothonotary
Vancouver, British Columbia
21 July 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: T-253-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Emile Marguerita Marcus Mennes |
| The Attorney General of Canada |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF:
John A. Hargrave, Prothonotary
dated July 21, 1998
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Emile Marguerita Marcus Mennes on his own behalf |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondent |
Email this Content