Date: 20080225
Dockets: A-495-07
A-509-07
A-549-07
A-550-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 73
Present: SHARLOW
J.A.
BETWEEN:
RON
CROWE
Appellant
and
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF CANADA BEVERLY McLACHLIN, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CHARRON, THE HONOURABLE
JUSTICE ROTHSTEIN OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF ONTARIO ROY McMURTRY, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE FELDMAN, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE
LANG OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JANET
WILSON OF THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HONOURABLE RICHARD SCOTT,
CHIEF JUSTICE OF MANITOBA AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF
THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (in their judicial and private capacities), THE
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MARITIME LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY now known as THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
MANULIFE FINANCIAL, DOMINIC D’ALESSANDRO, ARTHUR P. SAWCHUK, JOHN CASSADAY,
LINO J. CELESTE, GAIL COOK-BENNETT, THOMAS P. D’AQUINO, RICHARD B. DE WOLFE,
ROBERT E. DINEEN JR., PIERRE Y. DUCROS, ALLISTER P. GRAHAM, THOMAS E. KIERANS,
LORNA R. MARSDEN, HUGH W. SLOAN JR., GORDON G. THIESSEN (in their corporate and
private capacities), PAULO GRECO
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario,
on February 25, 2008.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW
J.A.
Date: 20080225
Dockets: A-495-07
A-509-07
A-549-07
A-550-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 73
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
RON CROWE
Appellant
and
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF CANADA BEVERLY McLACHLIN, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CHARRON, THE HONOURABLE
JUSTICE ROTHSTEIN OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF ONTARIO ROY McMURTRY, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE FELDMAN, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE
LANG OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JANET
WILSON OF THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HONOURABLE RICHARD SCOTT,
CHIEF JUSTICE OF MANITOBA AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF
THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL (in their judicial and private capacities), THE
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MARITIME LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY now known as THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
MANULIFE FINANCIAL, DOMINIC D’ALESSANDRO, ARTHUR P. SAWCHUK, JOHN CASSADAY,
LINO J. CELESTE, GAIL COOK-BENNETT, THOMAS P. D’AQUINO, RICHARD B. DE WOLFE,
ROBERT E. DINEEN JR., PIERRE Y. DUCROS, ALLISTER P. GRAHAM, THOMAS E. KIERANS,
LORNA R. MARSDEN, HUGH W. SLOAN JR., GORDON G. THIESSEN (in their corporate and
private capacities), PAULO GRECO
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
Before me are a number of motions, including a motion to consolidate
four appeals, a motion for an order that there will be a single consolidated
appeal book, and a motion to determine the contents of the consolidated appeal
book. To understand those motions, it is necessary to understand the background
to the appeals.
[2]
Mr. Crowe sued the Manufacturers Life Assurance Company (ManuLife) in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in connection with a disability insurance
policy. That proceeding resulted in “minutes of settlement” that Mr. Crowe
refused to sign. He dismissed his solicitor, Paolo Greco, and has been
representing himself since that time.
[3]
ManuLife moved to enforce the minutes of settlement. Justice Wilson of
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered a summary trial to determine
whether Mr. Crowe was bound by the minutes of settlement. That order required
the consent of Mr. Crowe. Mr. Crowe sought to appeal the order of Justice
Wilson to the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that his consent was not
valid because it was induced by fraud. Leave to appeal was denied. Leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also denied.
[4]
Mr. Crowe also submitted a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council
about Justice Wilson but the Chair of the Judicial Conduct Committee refused to
entertain the complaint.
[5]
On August 17, 2007, Mr. Crowe commenced an action in the Federal Court (T-1526-07)
against Mr. Greco, ManuLife and its officers and directors, the Attorney
General of Canada on behalf of the federal Crown, Justice Wilson, the judges of
the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada who dismissed his
applications for leave to appeal, the Canadian Judicial Council, and the Chair
of its Judicial Conduct Committee.
[6]
In three separate orders dated October 4, 2007, Justice Harrington
dismissed the claims against Mr. Greco, ManuLife and its officers and directors,
and the Attorney General of Canada. The reasons for those orders are cited as
2007 FC 1020.
[7]
On November 5, 2007, Mr. Crowe filed a notice of appeal seeking to
appeal all three orders. On December 21, 2007, Justice Décary gave Mr. Crowe leave
to file a single notice of appeal for all of the orders of Justice Harrington
issued October 4, 2007. That appeal is A-495-07. At the same time, Justice
Décary directed that the agreement as to the contents of the appeal book was to
be filed by January 21, 2008.
[8]
In an interlocutory order dated October 15, 2007, Justice Harrington on
his own motion required Mr. Crowe to show cause why his claims against the
other defendants should not be dismissed. Mr. Crowe has appealed that order
(A-509-07). Subsequently the remaining defendants served and filed motions for
summary dismissal, which were heard in a single hearing on November 6, 2007.
[9]
Justice Harrington issued three interlocutory orders dated November 7,
2007: an order dismissing the motion of Mr. Crowe to make an audio recording of
the hearing, an order dismissing Mr. Crowe’s motion for default judgment, and
an order abridging the time for filing the motion of the judges of the Supreme
Court of Canada for summary dismissal. Mr. Crowe has not appealed any of those
orders.
[10]
Justice Harrington issued two orders dated November 19, 2007. One
dismisses Mr. Crowe’s claims against the judges of the Ontario Courts, the
Canadian Judicial Council and the Chair of the Judicial Conduct Committee. The
other dismisses Mr. Crowe’s claims against the judges of the Supreme Court of
Canada. The reasons for those orders are cited as 2007 FC 1209.
[11]
On November 30, 2007, Mr. Crowe filed two notices of appeal. One appeals
the order dismissing his claims against the judges of the Supreme Court of
Canada (A-549-07). The other appeals the order dismissing his claims against
the judges of the Ontario Courts, the Canadian Judicial Council, and the Chair
of the Judicial Conduct Committee (A-550-07).
[12]
It is noted that in several instances Mr. Crowe has referred to orders
of Justice Harrington as having been made on a day preceding the date of the
written order. It is not necessary at this stage (indeed it may never be
necessary) to determine whether there is any substantive dispute on the timing
of the orders. For convenience, I will continue to refer to the orders by
reference to the dates on which the written orders were issued.
[13]
On December 17, 2007, Mr. Crowe filed a motion for an order determining
the contents of the appeal book in A-495-07. On January 15, 2008, he filed a
motion for an order consolidating all four of his appeals, an order for a
consolidated appeal book and an order determining the contents of the
consolidated appeal book. The motion for consolidation is unopposed and will be
granted. The December 17, 2007 motion will be dismissed as moot.
[14]
The consolidation order means that all of the following appeals will be
dealt with as a single proceeding in this Court:
(a)
Appeal No. A-495-07 from the orders of Justice Harrington dated October
4, 2007 dismissing the claims against Mr. Crowe’s former solicitor, dismissing
the claims against ManuLife, and its officers and directors, and dismissing the
claims against the Attorney General of Canada.
(b)
Appeal No. A-509-07 from the order of Justice Harrington dated October
15, 2007 requiring Mr. Crowe to show cause why his claims against the remaining
defendants should not be dismissed.
(c)
Appeal No. A-549-07 from the order of Justice Harrington dated November
19, 2007 dismissing the claims against the judges of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
(d)
Appeal No. A-550-07 from the order of Justice Harrington dated November
19, 2007 dismissing the claims against the judges of the Ontario Courts, the
Canadian Judicial Council, and the Chair of the Judicial Conduct Committee of
the Canadian Judicial Council.
[15]
Mr. Crowe has suggested that there should be a consolidated appeal
book. According to the material filed in Mr. Crowe’s motion record, all
parties agree with this. I agree as well.
[16]
According to Mr. Crowe’s material, the only dispute in relation to the
contents of the appeal book relates to the books of authorities submitted in
the Federal Court with the various motions that led to the orders under appeal.
The normal practice in this Court is not to include authorities such as
statutes and case law in the appeal book. That is the case even if those
authorities were before the judge in the court below. This Court will presume
that the judge referred to the cases that were brought to his attention. If an
appellant or respondent in an appeal believes that the judge in the court below
failed to consider a case that was brought to his attention, or misunderstood a
case or was referred to the wrong version of a reported case, it is sufficient
to make a submission to that effect in the memorandum of fact and law (see Rule
346), and include the correct version of the case in the joint book of
authorities (see Rule 348). Therefore, it is not necessary for the appeal books
to include copies of any authorities.
[17]
In this case, it is Mr. Crowe who has proposed that the books of
authorities submitted in the court below be included in the appeal book, and it
is he who must initially bear the costs of preparing the appeal books. According
to the material in Mr. Crowe’s motion record, all of the respondents have
agreed to the inclusion of the books of authorities in the appeal books,
although counsel for the Ontario judicial parties and the Canadian Judicial
Council (supported by counsel for the Attorney General of Canada) has suggested
that including the books of authorities in the appeal books may be unnecessarily
duplicative.
[18]
In these circumstances, I will make an order permitting (but not
requiring) the appellant to include the books of authorities in the appeal
books.
[19]
Mr. Crowe has also asked for the costs of the motion for determining the
contents of the consolidated appeal book.
[20]
Mr. Greco has filed a responding motion record opposing the costs award.
Mr. Crowe objects to that motion record being considered because of what he
claims are irregularities in the service of that motion record. The Attorney
General of Canada and the ManuLife respondents have also filed responding
records opposing Mr. Crowe’s request for costs, but outside the permitted time
limits.
[21]
Under the Court’s usual practice, costs on a motion to determine the
contents of an appeal book are costs in the cause. Mr. Crowe has provided no
basis for departing from that usual practice. Therefore, even without
considering any of the respondents’ motion records, I have no reason to grant
Mr. Crowe’s request for costs on his motion. Based only on Mr. Crowe’s motion
record, I will order that the costs of his motion will be costs in the cause.
“K.
Sharlow”
Email this Content