Pearson v. Canada

Pearson v. Canada

The appeal was dismissed because the prothonotary did not err in refusing to strike the statement of claim: the applicability of Quebec prescription to a Charter s.24(1) damages claim is contentious and not suitable for resolution on a motion to strike, and the plaintiff may frame his action as a Charter claim rather than having it recharacterized as malicious prosecution at the interlocutory stage.

Citation
2003 FC 1393
Parties
Plaintiff: Edwin Pearson; Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (motion to Strike)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.11(d), Charter S.24(1) Remedy, Prescription/limitation Period (quebec), Malicious Prosecution, Conflict of Laws
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Tort Civil Procedure Charter S.7 Charter S.11(d) Charter S.24(1) Remedy Prescription/limitation Period (quebec) Malicious Prosecution +1 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Pearson

Plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (motion to Strike)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether provincial limitation statutes (Quebec) apply to Charter damages claims under s.24(1)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's statement of claim is properly characterized as malicious prosecution and thus fails under the Nelles test
  3. 3 Appropriateness of striking a contested statement of claim at interlocutory stage on limitation grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the prothonotary did not err in refusing to strike the statement of claim: the applicability of Quebec prescription to a Charter s.24(1) damages claim is contentious and not suitable for resolution on a motion to strike, and the plaintiff may frame his action as a Charter claim rather than having it recharacterized as malicious prosecution at the interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed, with costs.