Canada v. Néron

Canada v. Néron

The motion was allowed and the impugned pleadings were struck because the asserted causes of action principally concerned events that were or could have been the subject of a grievance under section 29 of the National Defence Act which the defendant failed to pursue, depriving the Court of jurisdiction; further, parts of the claim were prescribed or premature under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Civil Code of Québec and the Pension Act, and the challenged defence paragraphs were immaterial to the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Citation
2005 FC 1559
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant to Counterclaim: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Stéphane Néron
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Pleadings (civil) / Pre Trial Motion
Outcome
Motion allowed with costs; amended counterclaim and specified defence paragraphs struck; plaintiff granted extension to file reply.
Legal Topics
Motion to Strike, Jurisdiction, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Prescription/statute of Limitations, Prematurity, Relevance of Pleadings
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tort Military Law Crown Liability Motion to Strike Jurisdiction Exhaustion of Internal Remedies +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Plaintiff/defendant to Counterclaim

Stéphane Néron

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike Pleadings (civil) / Pre Trial Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain negligence claims arising from matters subject to internal grievance procedures under section 29 of the National Defence Act
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's claims are time-barred under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Civil Code of Québec
  3. 3 Whether the claims are premature in light of the Pension Act and Liability Act

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was allowed and the impugned pleadings were struck because the asserted causes of action principally concerned events that were or could have been the subject of a grievance under section 29 of the National Defence Act which the defendant failed to pursue, depriving the Court of jurisdiction; further, parts of the claim were prescribed or premature under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Civil Code of Québec and the Pension Act, and the challenged defence paragraphs were immaterial to the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed with costs; amended counterclaim and specified defence paragraphs struck; plaintiff granted extension to file reply.

Orders

  • Motion by the plaintiff allowed with costs
  • Defendant's amended counterclaim struck out