Gaudet v. Canada
T-1938-97
Morneau P.
6/2/98
8 pp.
Subrogation-Motion by plaintiff under RR. 401(c), 419(1)(a), 1718(3) seeking to have Crown's counterclaim dismissed-According to plaintiff, Crown should proceed by separate action, given lack of connection between main claim and counterclaim-Plaintiff also contends certain paragraphs of counterclaim (in which Crown claims moral and exemplary damages and expenses incurred for replacing employees for whose temporary departure plaintiff was allegedly responsible) do not fall within Court's rationae materiae jurisdiction-Plaintiff, inmate in Crown correctional institution, filed action for damages and exemplary damages against the Crown on ground that, from July 1995 to August 1997, employees of institution knowingly violated his constitutional rights by making him endure inhuman conditions of detention-Counterclaim essentially refers to same period of time, but instead submits that plaintiff, by creating climate of terror against employees of correctional institution, directly responsible for fact three employees had to leave their jobs because of either post-traumatic stress or situational anxiety-Those employees have been compensated by Crown under Government Employees Compensation Act, under which Crown is statutorily subrogated to rights of those employees-No reason to order counterclaim be tried separately-Examining conduct of parties toward each other during period from July 1995 to August 1997 may be useful in assigning blame-Single common body of evidence may then be introduced at trial-In addition, much of claim already in record when plaintiff previously filed pleadings responding to counterclaim-Therefore now barred from relying on R. 1718(3)-Next, with respect to moral and exemplary damages, Court has jurisdiction in respect thereof since Crown subrogated to rights of action of employees thus compensated as could have claimed them from plaintiff-However Court has no jurisdiction over expenses caused by absence of three employees as this head of claim does not correspond to any right of action government employees might have asserted, and paragraph in question will be struck out-Plaintiff's motion will otherwise be dismissed-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 401(c), 419(1)(a), 1718(3)-Government Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-5.