Pelland c. La Reine, 2001 FCT 442

Date: 20010507

Docket: T-2121-00

Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 442

BETWEEN:

                                                         JEAN-GUY PELLAND

                                                                                                                                             Plaintiff

                                                                        - and -

                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, HEAD OF GOVERNMENT,

                                                              C.S.C. CANADA

                                                                        - and -

                                       CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

                                                                        - and -

                                                    RICHARD SAUVAGEAU

                                                                                                                                       Defendants

                                       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

DENAULT J.

[1]         The plaintiff, an inmate at the Drummondville federal penitentiary, is claiming the sum of $9,462,500 for various kinds of damage he allegedly suffered as a result of [TRANSLATION] "false, lying, malicious, irresponsible and dangerous . . ." statutory declarations made by Correctional supervisors, initially, on or about June 22, 1995, and then in testimony in the criminal court by the defendant Sauvageau on January 26, 2000.

[2]         The defendants filed a defence in which they vigorously disputed the plaintiff's claim. In particular, they argued that the cause of action relating to the facts set out in paras. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the statement of claim - they occurred in June 1995 - is prescribed.

[3]         The Court actually has two motions before it, one by the plaintiff who seeks (a) a stay of proceedings in the case at bar until he has obtained his preventive security file from Correctional Service Canada through the Access to Information Act; (b) an order by this Court that the Correctional Service give him his file [TRANSLATION] "in its entirety, that is, from his admission on or about October 18, 1975 to date"; (c) that the Court allow him to enter this file in evidence, and that deadlines be extended if necessary until the order sought is obtained. The second motion, by the defendants, asks the Court for a summary judgment dismissing the greater part of the plaintiff's claim because it is prescribed.

[4]         The motion for an order obliging the Correctional Service of Canada to give the plaintiff the file he has himself requested under the Access to Information Act is to say the least premature and cannot be granted in these proceedings. First, it is the function of the persons responsible for administering the Access to Information Act to rule on the application made to them, although their decision may, if necessary, be challenged in the manner laid down in that Act. The request to submit this file is also premature. Additionally, the plaintiff's motion does not indicate that there is any basis in the case at bar for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Federal Court Act.

[5]         I feel that the application for a summary judgment to dismiss the greater part of the damages claimed by the plaintiff must be allowed. It seems clear from reading the plaintiff's statement of claim that the damages claimed in paras. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 have to do with the allegedly untruthful [TRANSLATION] "statutory declarations" made on June 22, 1995, as alleged by the plaintiff in paras. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of his statement of claim. Under art. 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec, the prescription period for an action to enforce a personal right is three years. In the case at bar, inasmuch as the defendants duly pleaded prescription in para. 20 of their defence^[1] and the [TRANSLATION] "plaintiff's reply record" does not in any way contradict this argument, this part of the plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.

[6]         Accordingly:

1.         the plaintiff's motion is dismissed;

2.         the motion for a summary judgment by the defendants is allowed, and the Court

(a)        dismisses the plaintiff's action as to the claims contained in paras. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the statement of claim and referring to the facts alleged in paras. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of that statement of claim;

(b)        reserves the defendants' right as to the remainder of this action to make any representation at the hearing on the merits considered appropriate or relevant;

(c)        costs to follow.

Ottawa, Ontario

May 7, 2001

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT No.:                                                        T-2121-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                            JEAN-GUY PELLAND

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, HEAD OF GOVERNMENT,

C.S.C. CANADA

- and -

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

- and -

RICHARD SAUVAGEAU

WRITTEN MOTIONS HEARD WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: DENAULT J.

DATED:                                                                May 7, 2001

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Jean-Guy Pelland                                                  FOR HIMSELF

Jocelyne Provost                                                  FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Dominique Guimond

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg                                                 FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario