A-254-79
Richard Bosada (Appellant)
v.
The Queen, in right of Canada, the Queen, as
represented by R. H. Simmonds, Commissioner of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Saul Frum-
kin; Roger Leclair; Eugene Ewaschuk; Graham
Pinos; Gerald McCracken, Arne Kay; Douglas
Smith; and others unknown (Respondents)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Kerr
D.J.—Ottawa, April 25, 1980.
Practice — Motion to strike pleadings — Appeal from
judgment striking out the statement of claim and dismissing
the action — Individual respondents (defendants) were mem
bers of the R.C.M.P. or employees of the Crown — Appellant
(plaintiff), a lawyer, was charged, arrested and subjected to
criminal process after search, and seizure of file prepared in
connection with civil suit between his client, who was under
criminal investigation and the Crown and certain R.C.M.P.
officers — Action for malicious prosecution was dismissed on
the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, and want of reasonable
cause of action — Appeal was based on allegation that Trial
Judge erred in his decision Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
L. Max, Q.C. for appellant.
E. Bowie and A. S. Fradkin for respondents
the Queen in right of Canada, the Queen as
represented by R. H. Simmonds, Commis
sioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, Arne Kay and Douglas Smith.
G. D. Finlayson, Q.C. and J. J. Colangelo for
respondents Roger Leclair, Eugene Ewas-
chuk, Graham Pinos and Gerald McCracken.
SOLICITORS:
Bosada, Max, McKinley, Carroll, Ottawa, for
appellant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondents the Queen in right of Canada, the
Queen as represented by R. H. Simmonds,
Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mount
ed Police, Arne Kay and Douglas Smith.
McCarthy & McCarthy, Toronto, for
respondents Roger Leclair, Eugene Ewas-
chuk, Graham Pinos and Gerald McCracken.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: We do not need to hear you,
gentlemen.
Counsel for the appellant made only two attacks
against the judgment of the Trial Division [[1979]
2 F.C. 335]. He argued that the Judge below had
erred in deciding, first, that the action, in so far as
it was directed against defendants other than the
Crown, was not within the jurisdiction of the Trial
Division and, second, that, in any event, the appel
lant's action for malicious prosecution was prema
ture since it had been instituted before disposition
of the charges laid against the appellant.
There is, in our view, no substance in either of
those submissions and the appeal will therefore be
dismissed with costs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.