T-2685-80
Société de perception et d'administration Ultimex
Limitée and Jacques Lanctôt (Plaintiffs)
v.
The Queen and Bernard Leblanc (Defendants)
and
Attorney General's Prosecutor of the Province of
Quebec for the District of Hull (Mis -en-cause)
Trial Division, Marceau J.—Ottawa, June 17 and
18, 1980.
Practice — Motion to strike pleadings — Application by
defendant Leblanc to strike out statement of claim and dismiss
action pursuant to Rule 419, on ground that Court has no
jurisdiction to hear action — Application by both defendants
to strike pleadings because statement of claim discloses no
cause of action — Plaintiffs are suing for damages on ground
that a criminal indictment was laid in bad faith against a third
party with respect to an alleged crime committed against them,
and they were not consulted before charges were laid —
Applications allowed — Federal Court Rule 419.
APPLICATIONS.
COUNSEL:
J. E. Allard for plaintiffs.
J. C. Ruelland, Q.C. for defendants.
SOLICITORS:
J. E. Allard, Hull, Quebec, for plaintiffs.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
defendants.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for order rendered by
MARCEAU J.: Two applications to strike out the
statement of claim and dismiss the action pursuant
to Rule 419 were submitted by defendants. One,
relating to defendant Leblanc, maintains that this
Court has no jurisdiction to hear the action
brought; the other, submitted by both defendants,
contends that in any case the statement of claim
discloses no cause of action that could be a basis
for the conclusions sought.
The action to begin with is a cause for some
amazement, as plaintiffs are suing Her Majesty
the Queen and a Royal Canadian Mounted Police
officer for damages on the ground that a criminal
indictment was laid without basis, maliciously and
in bad faith against a third party. As I understand
it, their action is based on the fact that the alleged
crime, the criminal proceedings for which are still
pending, was committed against them, and they
were not consulted before the third party was
charged.
It is clear that both applications are entirely
valid. To begin with, the Court has no jurisdiction
with respect to the individual defendant, as the
application brought against him personally is not
based on "existing federal law" (a recent decision
on this point is that of Bosada v. The Queen
[1979] 2 F.C. 335, affirmed by the Court of
Appeal [1980] 2 F.C. 744). Second, and even
more importantly, the action manifestly cannot
stand against any of the defendants. This is so,
first, because the victim of a criminal offence need
not give his consent or be consulted before an
indictment is laid against the alleged perpetrator;
second, because the civil remedy to which an
instance of malicious prosecution may give rise
belongs first and foremost to the individual who
was improperly charged; and finally, because there
can be no question of claiming malicious prosecu
tion before the criminal proceedings arising out of
such prosecution have resulted in an acquittal.
ORDER
The applications to strike out the statement of
claim are allowed and the action is dismissed with
respect to both defendants, 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.