Date: 20041125
Citation: 2004 FC 1659
Vancouver, British Columbia, Thursday, the 25th day of November, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
BETWEEN:
FRANCIS MAZHERO
Plaintiff
- and -
THE HONOURABLE J. EDWARD RICHARD,
THE HONOURABLE BEVERLY BROWNE,
LUCILLE BERTRAND,
JANE DOE and JOHN DOE
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Mazhero has attempted to file a statement of claim in this Court against the defendants who include judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice, Nunavut Court of Appeal and a registry officer at the Supreme Court of Canada. He had taken various actions in the Nunavut Courts which, to use his words, "arose as a result of an allegation made in a report written by the Principal of the school where the Plaintiff was teaching." He is displeased with his treatment before the courts of Nunavut and the refusal of a Supreme Court of Canada registry officer to accept documents on the basis that his application was premature.
[2] The registry office of this Court thought the document was irregular and quite properly sought directions from a judge. I happened to be the duty judge and after reviewing the statement of claim gave the following Direction:
Inform Mr. Mazhero that his statement of claim is not being accepted for filing, and his postal money order of $150 is being returned to him for the following reasons:
1. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court is limited to the laws of Canada, the administration of which Parliament has entrusted to it in virtue of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended. The claim alleged by Mr. Mazhero is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court which has no general criminal jurisdiction and certainly no jurisdiction over judges or court officials of another court who purport to act in that capacity.
2. The Canadian Judicial Council (150 Metcalfe Street, 15th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8, fax (613) 998-8889 or www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca) deals with complaints against judges.
3. If Mr. Mazhero still considers that the Federal Court has jurisdiction, he may bring on a motion without notice to the defendants, requesting that the Court accept his statement of claim for filing. The motion must set out the reasons he thinks the Federal Court has jurisdiction.
[3] Mr. Mahzero apparently still considers that the Court has jurisdiction as he has brought on a motion requiring me to revoke or set aside my Direction and an order requiring the registry to accept his statement of claim for filing. I direct the statement of claim be accepted for filing so that it can be assigned a proper docket number. However, as Mr. Mazhero has not advanced any basis whatsoever for invoking this Court's jurisdiction, on my own motion I strike the statement of claim in its entirety pursuant to Rule 221, without leave to amend, and order that the action be dismissed. The statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action before this Court, is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and is otherwise an abuse of process of this Court.
[4] Under our federal constitution, legislative power is distributed between the federal Parliament on the one hand, and the provinces on the other. The administration of justice, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of the courts, falls within provincial jurisdiction.
[5] By way of exception, under section 101 of the Constitution Act, the federal Parliament may establish a general court of appeal and "additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada." The Supreme Court of Canada is the general court of appeal. Parliament has established four additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada. They are the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, Tax Court, and the Court Martial Appeal Court.
[6] The Supreme Court of Canada has taught us much about the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Unlike the superior courts of record established by the provinces, the Federal Court does not have inherent jurisdiction. In order for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction over the subject matter: (1) that subject matter must be assigned to Parliament under the Constitution; (2) there must be actual, existing and applicable federal law; and (3) the administration of that law must have been conferred upon the Federal Court. There are a whole series of cases commencing with Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. C.P. Ltd., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1054. See also "The Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts: An Overview" found in David Sgayias et al., Federal Court Practice 2004, (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2003).
[7] Even if every single word in the 51 paragraphs of the statement of claim is true, this Court is without jurisdiction. Mr. Mazhero says that the defendants acted in breach of their public duty, abused their power and were guilty of misfeasance in public office. There is absolutely nothing tying in his allegations about his teaching post, and subsequent alleged mistreatment by other courts, to the jurisdiction of this Court.
[8] Furthermore, the defendants, or at least some of them, enjoy judicial immunity.
ORDER
The statement of claim is accepted for filing and is struck out without leave to amend. The action is dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Sean Harrington"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2106-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: FRANCIS MAZHERO
v.
THE HONOURABLE J. EDWARD RICHARD et al.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: HARRINGTON J.
DATED: November 25, 2004
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Francis Mazhero on his own behalf
Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut