Stuart v. Canada

Stuart v. Canada

The Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the Attorney General of the United States and that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and First Amended Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts sufficient to support Charter breaches, misfeasance, conspiracy or other causes of action and were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; accordingly the pleadings were struck out without leave to amend and costs were awarded to the Crown.

Citation
2019 FC 801
Parties
Plaintiff: Leslie Stuart; First Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Second Defendant: The Attorney General of America
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Motion to Strike / Motion Decision
Outcome
Motion allowed. Statement of Claim and First Amended Statement of Claim struck out without leave to amend. Action against the Attorney General of the United States dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs awarded to the Crown.
Legal Topics
Charter Rights, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy, Striking Out Pleadings, Hague Service Convention, Costs
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Tort Civil Procedure Immigration Law International Service of Process Charter Rights Misfeasance in Public Office +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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Stuart

Plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

First Defendant

The Attorney General of America

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Motion to Strike / Motion Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction over the Attorney General of the United States
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff pleaded material facts sufficient to ground Charter claims
  3. 3 Whether the tort of misfeasance in public office and conspiracy were adequately pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the Attorney General of the United States and that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and First Amended Statement of Claim failed to plead material facts sufficient to support Charter breaches, misfeasance, conspiracy or other causes of action and were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; accordingly the pleadings were struck out without leave to amend and costs were awarded to the Crown.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed. Statement of Claim and First Amended Statement of Claim struck out without leave to amend. Action against the Attorney General of the United States dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs awarded to the Crown.

Orders

  • The action against the Attorney General of the United States is struck for lack of jurisdiction, without leave to amend.
  • The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated June 25, 2018 and First Amended Statement of Claim dated July 10, 2018 are struck out in their entirety without leave to amend.