CONSTITUTIONAL LAW |
Charter of Rights |
Pearson v. Canada
T-290-99
2003 FC 1058, Aronovitch P.
9/11/03
13 pp.
Crown moving to strike plaintiff's claim for $13 million, in compensatory, general and punitive damages, for alleged violations of Charter rights by servants of Crown in course of prosecuting plaintiff on narcotic-related charges--Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, s. 32 providing action against Crown subject to time bars prescribed by law of province where cause of action arose--Assuming claim action to enforce personal right, and subject to other relevant articles of Civil Code, period of limitation three years pursuant to Civil Code of Quebec, art. 2925--Crown maintaining material facts relied upon in statement of claim exclusively in respect of 1991 trial, and accordingly, action long prescribed when commenced in Court--Plaintiff arguing breach of rights ongoing, and continuing disclosure of documents, including in context of present action, serve to nourish his claim-- Plaintiff's principal argument in response: provincial time limitations cannot apply to bar his claim as grounded in Charter--Hugessen J., in St-Onge v. Canada (1999), 178 F.T.R. 104 (F.C.T.D.), concluded provincial limitation, applicable to tort, does act to bar action in tort based on delicts which are at same time infringements of rights guaranteed by Charter--Hugessen J. noted "it does not follow . . . that the Charter has completely destroyed existing systems and created a system in which no procedure or prescription exists. On the contrary, existing legislation and procedures continued to apply except where they were clearly inconsistent with the Charter itself"--Even assuming provincial period of prescription applies, motion to strike not appropriate venue for determination and application of time bar--In Kibale v. Canada (1990), 123 N.R. 153, Federal Court of Appeal held statute limitations not valid ground to strike statement of claim for failure to disclose cause of action--Accordingly, prescription will not avail Crown in this instance, even though limitations have been pleaded, all the more so where issue appears to be joined in reply--Motion denied--Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 21), s. 32 (as am. idem, s. 31)--Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2925.