Date: 20001124
Docket: T-569-00
BETWEEN:
MARY JANE DAWSON
Plaintiff
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES A.S.P.
[1] I struck out a lengthy statement of claim in this action on July 24, 2000 with leave to file an amended statement of claim within 45 days. The reason that the claim was struck, as I explained at the time, was that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. I was not positive that within the pleading a possible cause of action was not hidden. And for that reason allowed the filing of an amended claim. I suggested to the plaintiff, who appeared in person, that she should summarize her claim and set out her statements in a logical order. The plaintiff has now filed some 78 pages of claim which she states contains the original claim an the summary. The Crown has moved to strike the amended claim and dismiss the action on the grounds that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and that portions of the claim are immaterial or redundant. It stands to reason that if the document contains a claim and a summary of the claim that portions will be redundant or repetitive. The document containing 78 pages is difficult to understand, but the defendant has identified four possible causes of action therein:
1) Wrongful dismissal;
| 2) Breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; |
| 3) Breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act; and |
| 4) Breach of the Employment Equity Act. |
[2] The fact alleged that the plaintiff was not dismissed because she was a term employee who's term had expired would not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had not suffered damage from the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act and Employment Equity Act while employed. However, which of the many allegations applies to each alleged breach is not set out.
[3] There is also a possibility that the plaintiff is alleging that she was in fact employed for an indeterminate period rather than for the fixed period in the signed contract. The contract for indeterminate employment is alleged to have been "in motion", but whether that means actually being performed or under negotiation is not ascertainable from the plethora of words filed. I am quite satisfied that the amended statement of claim does not reveal a reasonable cause of action and that the claim must struck out.
[4] The Rules give some guidance as to the form pleadings are to take. Form 171A indicated that the relief claim should be stated first, as I believe as been done. Then, in consecutively numbered paragraphs each of the allegations which supports the claim or claims are to be set out. Rule 173 and the immediately following Rules also give guidance as to the content of the pleading, which should be concise. Following the Rules might have disclosed a cause of action in a manner which would give the defendant an opportunity to respond, which is what is the real purpose of a pleading. While the possibility of the existence of a number of causes of action exists and where this the first time of striking the claim, leave to amend would be almost automatically granted. However, a question arises as to how many times a party should be given an opportunity to file an adequate document. Here, the plaintiff is not represented by counsel and I believe should be given a final opportunity to file a statement of claim, which conforms to the Rules. Having had two chances, the plaintiff would be well-advised to seek professional advice.
[5] In addition, the plaintiff has filed a document asking for clarification of my earlier order. The intent of that order must be gathered from the order itself. As for guidance for the further amended claim committed to the plaintiff by this order, the plaintiff should seek guidance from the Rules particularly those following Rule 171. A precise a concise summary instead of rather than in addition to either of the preceding statements of claim might be a general guideline. If the plaintiff is unable to obtain professional advice, it may be that a friend would read the statement of claim and see if it was understandable to a person who was already not aware of all the facts.
ORDER
[6] The amending statement of claim here is struck out with leave to file a further amended statement of claim within 30 days of the date of this order.
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
November 24, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: T-569-00 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MARY JANE DAWSON |
Plaintiff
- and -
| ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Defendant
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
| DATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2000 |
| WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Ms. Mary Jane Dawson |
| The Plaintiff on Her Own Behalf |
| Ms. Caroline Engmann |
| For the Defendant |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mary Jane Dawson |
| 219-207 Morningside Avenue |
| Scarborough, Ontario |
| M1E 3E3 |
| The Plaintiff on Her Own Behalf |
| Morris Rosenberg |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| For the Defendant |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20001124
Docket: T-569-00
Between:
| MARY JANE DAWSON |
Plaintiff
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER |