Thirion v. Lessard

Thirion v. Lessard

Associate Chief Justice Gagné held that Associate Judge Duchesne did not err: the Defendants established prima facie entitlement to security under Rule 416(1)(a) given the Plaintiff's non-residence and history, the Plaintiff filed no evidence to satisfy Rule 417's conjunctive test (impecuniosity and merits), the discretionary decision was within permissible principles, Microsoft was distinguishable, access to justice authority on public interest standing did not apply, and therefore the Order requiring security for costs of $24,000 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
2023 FC 822
Parties
Plaintiff: PHILIPPE THIRION; Defendant: LOUIS LESSARD; Defendant: MARYSE BREAULT; Defendant: AGENCE DES SERVICES FRONTALIERS DU CANADA; Defendant: SA MAJESTÉ LE ROI
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (security for Costs) / Appeal From Associate Judge Order (motion Under Rules 416 417)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Associate Judge Duchesne's order for security for costs upheld; costs awarded to Defendants
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Access to Justice, Discretionary Review, Estoppel by Conduct, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Access to Justice Discretionary Review +2 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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHILIPPE THIRION

Plaintiff

LOUIS LESSARD

Defendant

MARYSE BREAULT

Defendant

AGENCE DES SERVICES FRONTALIERS DU CANADA

Defendant

SA MAJESTÉ LE ROI

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (security for Costs) / Appeal From Associate Judge Order (motion Under Rules 416 417)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Associate Judge Duchesne erred in law or in exercise of discretion in ordering security for costs under Rules 416 and 417
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff established impecuniosity and merits under Rule 417 to displace entitlement under Rule 416
  3. 3 Whether the order infringed access to justice as articulated in Council of Canadians with Disabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Associate Chief Justice Gagné held that Associate Judge Duchesne did not err: the Defendants established prima facie entitlement to security under Rule 416(1)(a) given the Plaintiff's non-residence and history, the Plaintiff filed no evidence to satisfy Rule 417's conjunctive test (impecuniosity and merits), the discretionary decision was within permissible principles, Microsoft was distinguishable, access to justice authority on public interest standing did not apply, and therefore the Order requiring security for costs of $24,000 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Associate Judge Duchesne's order for security for costs upheld; costs awarded to Defendants

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's appeal of Associate Judge Duchesne's Order of January 5, 2023 is dismissed
  • Associate Judge Duchesne's Order requiring security for costs in the amount of $24,000 is upheld