A-546-96
(T-901-96)
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF an application of
Appeal from the Trial Division
of the Federal Court of
Canada, pursuant to s. 27 of
the FEDERAL
COURT ACT, R.S.C., 1985.
AND IN THE MATTER of the FINAL
JUDGMENT rendered on
June 10, 1996 for the
F.C.T.D. FILE: T-901-96.
BETWEEN:
NANDU
PATEL
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
-
and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF
CANADA
AS REPRESENTED BY THE CANADIAN HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION AND MR. MAXWELL
YALDEN,
MR. GERALD SAVARD, MR. CHARLES
THÉROUX,
MS. MICHELLE BOUGIE, MS.
SUZANNE HÉBERT,
MS. SHERI
HELGASON et al.
Respondents
(Defendants)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the
Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,
on
Tuesday, September 2, 1997)
MARCEAU J.A.
We
are all of the view that this appeal cannot succeed.
It
is clear to us that the subject matter of the action filed by the appellant on
April 19, 1996 is the same as that of her previous action commenced on October
31, 1994 and struck out on June 8, 1995 because it failed to disclose a
reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. Both actions
are, in effect, aimed at pursuing an alleged right to recover damages said to
have been sustained by the appellant as a result of the dismissal of her
complaint of discrimination against Statistics Canada, a dismissal that was due
to a failure by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and some of its agents to
perform their legal duties. Both are actions in negligence against the Crown
despite the fact that the agents mentioned are not exactly the same in both
and the negligence alleged is more precisely described in the second as
compared to the first action. As the first action has been disposed of by
final judgment, the second could not be allowed to stand: it was clearly a
case of cause of action estoppel, or res judicata.
In
addition, it had already been finally decided in the judicial review proceeding
of January 30, 1996 that there had been nothing reprehensible in the manner in
which the Commission or its agents had fulfilled their legal duties with
respect to the appellant's complaint. That decision may not, in itself, give
rise to a cause of action estoppel since the nature of a judicial review
proceeding is different from that of an action in damages. However, as the
judicial review proceeding had definitively disposed of the central allegation
in the action for damages, namely that, as a result of wrong doings on the part
of the Commission and its agents, the complaint had been badly investigated and
treated, it gives an obvious basis for an issue estoppel that makes the actions
all the more unrecievable.
The
judgment appealed against is therefore well-founded and will not be disturbed.
This is not a case for costs.
"Louis Marceau"
J.A.
A-546-96
(T-901-96)
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
IN THE MATTER OF an application of
Appeal from the Trial Division
of the Federal Court of
Canada, pursuant to s. 27 of
the FEDERAL
COURT ACT, R.S.C., 1985.
AND IN THE MATTER of the FINAL
JUDGMENT rendered on
June 10, 1996 for the
F.C.T.D. FILE: T-901-96.
BETWEEN:
NANDU
PATEL
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
-
and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF
CANADA
AS REPRESENTED BY THE CANADIAN HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION AND MR. MAXWELL
YALDEN,
MR. GERALD SAVARD, MR. CHARLES
THÉROUX,
MS. MICHELLE BOUGIE, MS.
SUZANNE HÉBERT,
MS. SHERI
HELGASON et al.
Respondents
(Defendants)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on Tuesday, September
2, 1997.
Judgement rendered from the Bench on Tuesday,
September 2, 1997.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MARCEAU
J.A.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
A-546-96
(T-901-96)
IN THE MATTER OF an application of Appeal from
the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada, pursuant to s. 27 of the FEDERAL
COURT ACT, R.S.C., 1985.
AND IN THE MATTER of the FINAL JUDGMENT rendered
on June 10, 1996 for the F.C.T.D. FILE: T-901-96.
BETWEEN:
NANDU PATEL
Appellant
(Plaintiff)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS
REPRESENTED BY THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND MR. MAXWELL YALDEN, MR.
GERALD SAVARD, MR. CHARLES THÉROUX, MS. MICHELLE BOUGIE, MS. SUZANNE HÉBERT,
MS. SHERI HELGASON et al.
Respondents
(Defendants)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT
Email this Content