Lill v. Canada

Lill v. Canada

The Amended Statement of Claim was struck because it impermissibly seeks to re-litigate the same decision already adjudicated by the Superior Court (which found the transfer lawful and reasonable), and therefore (1) discloses no reasonable cause of action because the requisite fault is absent, and (2) amounts to an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 FC 752
Parties
Plaintiff: Christopher Lill; Defendant: His Majesty the King
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (damages Against Crown Concerning Inmate Transfer) / Motion to Strike (rule 221) — Decision
Outcome
Defendant's motion to strike granted; Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim struck in its entirety without leave to amend; action dismissed; costs of $750 awarded to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Relitigation, Habeas Corpus, Security Classification, Inmate Transfer, Procedural Fairness, Charter Rights, Damages
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Corrections Law Prison Law Abuse of Process Relitigation Habeas Corpus +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Lill

Plaintiff

His Majesty the King

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (damages Against Crown Concerning Inmate Transfer) / Motion to Strike (rule 221) — Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the Amended Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action under Rule 221(1)(a)
  2. 2 whether the action constitutes an abuse of process/impermissible relitigation in light of the Superior Court decision under Rule 221(1)(f)
  3. 3 whether the Superior Court’s decision precludes a damages claim based on the same facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Statement of Claim was struck because it impermissibly seeks to re-litigate the same decision already adjudicated by the Superior Court (which found the transfer lawful and reasonable), and therefore (1) discloses no reasonable cause of action because the requisite fault is absent, and (2) amounts to an abuse of process; the claim is dismissed and struck without leave to amend and costs awarded to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion to strike granted; Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim struck in its entirety without leave to amend; action dismissed; costs of $750 awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • The Defendant’s motion to strike is granted.
  • The Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is struck out in its entirety without leave to amend.