Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/373554870/42-Second-Reasons-for-Judgement-Sent-in-February
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:10:29+00:00

Document:
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
Mr. GLEASON J. NEAR J. Amos claims $11 million in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety that the Canadian Government will no longer . David Raymond Amos (Mr. BETWEEN: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS Respondent on the cross-appeal (and formally Appellant) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant on the cross-appeal (and formerly Respondent) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT I. Introduction  On September 16. 2015.A.A. Date: 20171030 Docket: A-48-16 Citation: 2017 FCA 213 CORAM: WEBB J. Amos) filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown).A.
2016 (2016 FC 93). 2015 (Docket T-1557-15). This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed . struck all of Mr. including two of the judges of this panel. Preliminary Matter  Mr. 96). a judge of the Federal Court (the Judge). As such. 2016. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the Federal Court Judgment. in his memorandum of fact and law in relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March 6. Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment). Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order. had a conflict of interest in this appeal. II. indicated that several judges of this Court. without leave to amend. Mr. the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s cross-appeal. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19. the Claim was fundamentally vexatious.  On November 12. Amos. reviewing the matter de novo. a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety. 2017.  On January 25. and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the Prothontary’s Order). Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status Review.  Mr. by way of Mr. by way of a motion brought by the Crown. on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim disclosed no reasonable claim. Page: 2 allow the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan (Claim at para.
Page: 3 with this Court. Amos was of the view that he did not have to identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed with the Federal Court.. Court of Appeal. If the Federal Court and this Court were one Court. by virtue of his or her office.  Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide that: .  However. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with several judges but did not name those judges.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel Court of Appeal is. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in the Federal Court would be filed in this Court.C. R. these subsections only provide that the judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice versa). a judge of the Federal Court fédérale et ont la même compétence et and has all the jurisdiction. power and les mêmes pouvoirs que les juges de la authority of a judge of the Federal Cour d’appel fédérale. there would be no need for this section. F-7: 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont is.1(4) Every judge of the Federal 5.  Mr. 1985. Court. c. […] […] 5. power and les mêmes pouvoirs que les juges de la authority of a judge of the Federal Cour fédérale. This view is based on subsections 5(4) and 5. It does not mean that there is only one court. a d’office juges de la Cour d’appel judge of the Federal Court of Appeal fédérale et ont la même compétence et and has all the jurisdiction.S.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act. by virtue of that fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour office.
Page: 4 3 The division of the Federal Court of 3 La Section d’appel. Elle est maintenue à titre de additional court of law. est maintenue et dénommée the name “Federal Court of Appeal” in « Cour d’appel fédérale » en français English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” et « Federal Court of Appeal » en in French. appelée la Section de Trial Division is continued under the première instance de la Cour fédérale. cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en matière civile et pénale. SOR/98-106 in relation to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. Amos suggests. for the et d’amirauté du Canada. of the laws of Canada and as a propre à améliorer l’application du superior court of record having civil droit canadien. d’equity admiralty in and for Canada. . documents filed in the Federal Court were automatically also filed in this Court. equity and admiralty in and for à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit. If. propre à better administration of the laws of améliorer l’application du droit Canada and as a superior court of canadien. Elle est maintenue law. equity and tribunal additionnel de droit. aussi appelée la Canada called the Federal Court — Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel Appeal Division is continued under fédérale. for the better administration d’equity et d’amirauté du Canada. 4 The division of the Federal Court of 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada called the Federal Court — Canada. et continue d’être une and criminal jurisdiction. It is continued as an anglais. et continue d’être une cour record having civil and criminal supérieure d’archives ayant jurisdiction.  Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court (section 4). Canada. as Mr. It is fédérale » en français et « Federal continued as an additional court of Court » en anglais. name “Federal Court” in English and est maintenue et dénommée « Cour “Cour fédérale” in French. then there would no need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules. The requirement to file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that appeal book. compétence en matière civile et pénale.
Mr. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this Court and. supported his allegations. in his view. Page: 5  Therefore. was also afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict that he was alleging and to file additional documents that. Mr. Mr. supported his claim of a conflict. 2017 is the first document. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this cross-appeal. in which Mr. Mr. as such. immediately following that biography. 2017. He organized the documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular judge and then. supported his claim that such judge had a conflict. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a conflict in any matter related to him. . by including copies of the documents that. following the hearing of his appeal. filed with this Court. the memorandum of fact and law filed on March 6. Amos alleged that the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and submitted some documents that.  During the hearing of the appeal Mr. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if Mr. in his view. the submissions filed before the Federal Court will not be entertained. since this was a motion brought before the Federal Court (and not this Court). Amos attempted to bring a motion before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal Court.  On April 3. it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Amos. Amos submitted several pages of documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. any documents filed in relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court. in his view. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal Court of Appeal. As well.
Mr. However. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of Patterson Palmer. which is not in the same province where Justice Webb practiced law. Mr. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The affidavit is dated January 24.  The documents that he submitted in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between Byron Prior and the St. In particular. The only document that indicates any dealing between Mr. Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he was a member of such firm. none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law. Amos also included a letter that is addressed to four . Page: 6  The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in 2006. Amos. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May who was a partner in the St. Amos submitted that he had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner of these firms. and before that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr. in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb. 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails that were sent by Mr.  During his oral submissions at the hearing of his appeal Mr. Amos was dealing with this lawyer. Mr. it is far from clear whether such dealings were after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada over 10 years ago. focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at Patterson Law. Amos to Stephen May.
R. …[ 1 S.R. In this letter Mr. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker]. held by reasonable and right minded persons. one of whom is John Crosbie who was counsel to the St.C. 259. would conclude that Mr.L. National Energy Board. 68 D.and having thought the matter through -. (3d) 716].R. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. viewing the matter realistically and practically -."  The issue to be determined is whether an informed person. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer. 570 Queen Street. applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. c/o Greg G. Suite 502. he now has a conflict. 369. Her Majesty the Queen. at p. As this Court has previously remarked.conclude. In Wewaykum Indian Band v. NB E3B 5E3”. Byrne. . Fredericton. and having thought the matter through. the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias: 60 In Canadian law. 2003 SCC 45. whether consciously or unconsciously. is the reasonable apprehension of bias: … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one. as expressed by de Grandpré J. 394. 2004 and is addressed to “John Crosbie. Page: 7 individuals. In the words of the Court of Appeal. that test is "what would an informed person.  Mr. The criterion. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. “there is a strong presumption that judges will administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v. Amos’ allegations give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.C. The letter is dated September 2. one standard has now emerged as the criterion for disqualification.  2 S. Amos alludes to a possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer. would not decide fairly. viewing the matter realistically and practically.
151 D. The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a lawyer.L. in MacDonald Estate v. 484 at para. disqualification is not the natural corollary to a finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over which he or she is now presiding. that there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge and that. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U. it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous involvement in the case. (4th) 193). 86 O. v. See also R. it is argued how is it that as a trial judge Patterson J. as explained by Sopinka J.D.C. 58. 7. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict: 27 Thus. (R. To the contrary. Where the judge had no involvement. Bayfield Properties Ltd. a conclusory statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential .T. 157 [Collins].B. Patterson been asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to the bench.K. Page: 8 Canada.C. at para.). v.  3 S.). (4th) 249 (S. 2011 FCA 140 at para.L." 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the different contexts and in particular.. S.R.R.C.  Q. the strong presumption of judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification of a judge.) Ltd. 451.C.R. 32. v.  4 C. "[e]verything depends on the circumstances. 77 D. Thus. as here. 2007)). for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying interest that can rarely be overcome. addressed the particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused. Scott. Martin (1990).R. The court held. the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the defendants in the case. 2007 ONCA 553.  The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. In particular. 32285 (August 1.
at the time of the motion. 85: To us. The second is the long passage of time. More importantly. Most arguments for disqualification rest on circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making. or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making. (emphasis added) . there are two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to recuse himself. I take this view principally because of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage. The first is his statement. 31 There are other factors that inform the issue.of a firm that he left six years earlier and that no longer acts for the client. The mere fact that his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former client. ignore his oath of office and favour a client . at para. In my view. The case is the opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge. That factor is the passage of time. and must inform the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this involvement on Binnie J. that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and that he had nothing to do with it. had been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with his former firm for a considerable period of time. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw off his mantle of impartiality. As was said in Wewaykum. The Wilson Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of trial. in a case involving events from over a decade ago. which all parties accept. a reasonable person. at para. 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. one significant factor stands out. 19.'s impartiality in the appeals. viewing the matter realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly and impartially with this case.about whom he knew nothing . Page: 9 information about the case will never be sufficient. In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail. Patterson J. 32 In my view.
However. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law. nor does Mr. who had been a member of the law firm that had been retained by the accused. the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge. Amos made it clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer.R. Amos suggest that he did. 96. 257 N. this court did find that there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge. this case can be distinguished as Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr. 2000 MBCA 30. Page: 10  Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter involving Mr. Bagot.C. v. Any involvement of Mr. who while he was a lawyer. Amos with Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he was a member of Patterson Palmer. 145 Man. the length of time since Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice Webb hearing this appeal. This is simply not enough for Justice Webb to be disqualified. had no involvement with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm. R.  Similarly in R. (2d) 260. In addition to the lack of any involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. 321. Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law. .  4 F.  In Del Zotto v. had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who was before that judge. Mr. Minister of National Revenue. Amos had with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is sufficient to dispose of this matter).
both Justice Gleason and Mr. this is a matter for the American law enforcement authorities and cannot create.  Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr. begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing you and your little dogs too”. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He stated in his affidavit dated June 26. there is no conflict or reasonable apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore. At that time. There is no indication that the letter was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr. 2017 that there is a “true copy of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD. Page: 11  Mr. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself. Amos against Mr. The letter in question. In the circumstances. as Mr. Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding the cross-appeal. it appears that he alleges that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm Ogilvy Renault. Amos provided no details and Justice Near confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the Claim. LLP. no reason for him to recuse himself.  As a result. Since he has indicated that this is an “American police surveillance wiretap”.  Mr. Amos suggests. which is rude and angry. He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing to investigate it”. Mulroney. . a conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
235 [Housen]. it is no longer appropriate for the Federal Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the case. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology. III. Rather. 2002 SCC 33. this Court can only interfere with a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding . Nikolaisen. v. 2016 FCA 215. 79). Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action? IV. As a result. this Court revisited the standard of review to be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira Healthcare Corp. Issue  The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr. In Hospira. Standard of Review  Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order. Analysis A. a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at para. Further.C.R. Page: 12 there is no reason for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.R.  2 S.L. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. a five- member panel of this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that articulated in Housen v. 402 D.
Amos .  In the case at bar. (…) 21. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Provinces. it is difficult or impossible to determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance. the Plaintiff addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the Defendant to respond. In any event. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. 82- 83). Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim. All but four of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006 in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The Judge noted that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors who barred Mr. the Judge substituted his own assessment of Mr. inclusive. As a result. the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province or provincial actors as parties to this action.  The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. Did the Judge err in interfering with the Prothonotary’s Order?  The Prothonotary’s Order accepted the following paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the Claim in its entirety without leave to amend: 17. the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he suspects he is barred from the House of Commons. This Court must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to interfere. The incident alleged does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court. Page: 13 error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law (Hospira at paras. [footnotes omitted]. B. At best. A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action.
111:  As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse. including the RCMP. 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis]. who barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004. 2013 FC 389. In considering the viability of these allegations de novo. did so for “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. the Judge identified paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at para. . 23). and c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly. I must determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office: a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as public officer. 28). Page: 14 from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para.  The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v.  The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office because the actors. b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff. 27). 29). 2003 SCC 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada. 431 F.R. at paras 23. 24 and 28 (Federal Court Judgment at para. above. Canada. Odhavji.T.
deliberate conduct which the public officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her office. it is not enough to assert. citations omitted).  The Prothonotary determined that Mr.. Making bald.” “malice” or “fraudulent intention. such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or negligently. Canada (Revenue Agency). Amos was barred from the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons. i.e. the Judge erred in determining that . “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”.” “wilful default. knew that his or her conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. particularization of the allegations is mandatory.” (at paras. baldly. pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct. Paragraph 14 of the Claim. As such.” or “by fraud and theft did steal”. conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse of process… To this. 34-35.L. and acted in bad faith. For this tort. I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying out the impunged action.” “callous disregard. 2010 FCA 184. 321 D. Amos’ Claim disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to ground a cause of action. we are of the view that the Judge interfered absent a legal or palpable and overriding error. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of allegations of “breach of trust. which addresses the 2004 event.  Applying the Housen standard of review to the Prothonotary’s Order. Amos.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt: …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power. Page: 15  This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings in Merchant Law Group v. these allegations are not particularized and are directed against non-federal actors. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr.” “state of mind of a person.
Further. the Claim is made up entirely of bare allegations. The deficiencies in Mr. Near" J. Gleason" J. 26). "Mary J. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action. we would allow the Crown’s cross-appeal. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. Page: 16 Mr. "David G. the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order. Amos’ Claim in its entirety without leave to amend. Conclusion  For the foregoing reasons. V. .A. setting aside the Federal Court Judgment. Therefore.L. Webb" J.A. we find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend. dated November 12. such that it discloses no reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. dated January 25. devoid of any detail. which struck Mr. "Wyman W. with costs.  In our view.A. 2015.
DATED: OCTOBER 30. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED JANUARY 25.A. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: FREDERICTON. 2017 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: WEBB J.A. Drouin FOR THE RESPONDENT / Deputy Attorney General of Canada APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL . NEW BRUNSWICK DATE OF HEARING: MAY 24. 2016. 2017 APPEARANCES: David Raymond Amos FOR THE APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ON CROSS- APPEAL (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Jan Jensen FOR THE RESPONDENT / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nathalie G. DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.A. NEAR J. GLEASON J. DOCKET: A-48-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.