Dunn v. Canada (Attorney General)

Dunn v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Claim is struck because it is plain and obvious that section 9 of the CLPA bars the action: the compensation paid or payable to the plaintiff was made on the same factual basis (exposure to mould aboard HMCS Vancouver) as the pleaded causes of action (negligence, fiduciary breach, Charter breach); further, the plaintiff was subject to the exclusive CAF grievance scheme under NDA s.29 and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the Court exercising residual jurisdiction.

Citation
2025 FC 652
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: FÉLIX LOUIS HENRI ROGER DUNN; Defendant/applicant: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Proposed Class Action / Motion to Strike (rules 221(1) and 369)
Outcome
AGC motion allowed; Plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck in its entirety without leave to amend; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Crown Immunity, Crown Liability and Proceedings Act S.9, National Defence Act S.29 Grievance Scheme, Charter S.7 Damages, Veterans Well Being Act Compensation, Jurisdiction, Motion to Strike
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Public Law Constitutional Law Tort Law Employment and Labour Law Class Actions Crown Immunity Crown Liability and Proceedings Act S.9 +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FÉLIX LOUIS HENRI ROGER DUNN

Plaintiff/respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Proposed Class Action / Motion to Strike (rules 221(1) and 369)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the affidavits admissible on a motion to strike?
  2. 2 Is the Claim statute-barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act?
  3. 3 Should the Federal Court decline jurisdiction because of the CAF grievance scheme under section 29 of the National Defence Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claim is struck because it is plain and obvious that section 9 of the CLPA bars the action: the compensation paid or payable to the plaintiff was made on the same factual basis (exposure to mould aboard HMCS Vancouver) as the pleaded causes of action (negligence, fiduciary breach, Charter breach); further, the plaintiff was subject to the exclusive CAF grievance scheme under NDA s.29 and failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the Court exercising residual jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

AGC motion allowed; Plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck in its entirety without leave to amend; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • The Attorney General of Canada’s motion is allowed.
  • The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is struck in its entirety without leave to amend.