Sidhu v. Canada (Attorney General)

Sidhu v. Canada (Attorney General)

The chambers judge and Court of Appeal correctly held that the historical paragraphs lacked material factual particulars from which discriminatory conduct rooted in racial profiling and a s.15 breach could be inferred; consequently the impugned paragraphs were properly struck under Rule 20(26) because a bare allegation of racial profiling is insufficient and the defendants must be able to know the case they have to meet.

Citation
2016 YKCA 6
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mandeep Singh Sidhu; Respondents/defendants: The Attorney General (Canada) and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Constables Andrew West, Mike Seidemann, Matthew Leggett and Scott Carr, Corporals Natasha Dunmall and Jason B. Waldner)
Court
Yukon Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Alleging Charter S.15 Breach and Related Torts / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Application to Strike Pleadings Under Rule 20(26)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order striking specified paragraphs of the amended statement of claim upheld
Legal Topics
Section 15 Charter, Racial Profiling, Pleadings and Particularity, Strike Pleadings (rule 20(26)), Misfeasance in Public Office, Defamation, Unlawful Detention
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Police Law Human Rights Section 15 Charter Racial Profiling Pleadings and Particularity +4 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandeep Singh Sidhu

Appellant/plaintiff

The Attorney General (Canada) and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Constables Andrew West, Mike Seidemann, Matthew Leggett and Scott Carr, Corporals Natasha Dunmall and Jason B. Waldner)

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Alleging Charter S.15 Breach and Related Torts / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Application to Strike Pleadings Under Rule 20(26)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the historical pleadings adequately pleaded a s.15 racial profiling claim
  2. 2 Whether the chambers judge erred in striking paragraphs under Rule 20(26) for disclosing no reasonable claim or being scandalous, frivolous or prejudicial
  3. 3 What particularity and material facts are required to plead racial profiling or systemic discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge and Court of Appeal correctly held that the historical paragraphs lacked material factual particulars from which discriminatory conduct rooted in racial profiling and a s.15 breach could be inferred; consequently the impugned paragraphs were properly struck under Rule 20(26) because a bare allegation of racial profiling is insufficient and the defendants must be able to know the case they have to meet.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order striking specified paragraphs of the amended statement of claim upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order striking specified paragraphs of the amended statement of claim upheld