Mennes v. Oddie

Mennes v. Oddie
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-06-01
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 571
File numbers
T-2351-00
Decision Content
Date: 20010601
Docket: T-2351-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 571
Ottawa, Ontario, this 1st day of June 2001
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
EMILE MENNES
Applicant
- and -
JOHN ODDIE and
THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PELLETIER J.
[1] Emile Mennes has forwarded to the Court an ex parte motion seeking an order compelling Mr. John Oddie, the Assistant Warden, Management Services, Warkworth Institution and the Correctional Service of Canada to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court by reason of certain conduct set out in the Notice of Motion. The conduct complained of consists of various instances of alleged interference with the applicant's right of access to the Court by reason of limiting the applicant's access to facsimile and photocopying services, and failing to provide a proper law library for the benefit of inmates at the Warkworth Institution.
[2] Officials in the Registry were unsure as to whether the document could be accepted for filing and therefore referred the matter to a judge, as provided in Rule 72(2) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. It eventually reached me.
[3] The motion is to be accepted for filing notwithstanding some defects, not the least of which is that, as a motion it is not an originating document and therefore cannot be used to initiate a proceeding. As a result it needs to be appended to an existing file. The Registry advises that the Applicant, who is apparently responsible for some 40 files before this Court, made a similar motion in file T-2351-00 which he subsequently abandoned. For purposes of disposing of this matter, it is to be accepted for filing in action T-2351-00.
[4] The matter having been accepted for filing, and the motion being an ex parte motion which therefore does not require service upon nor submissions from the respondents, there is no impediment to my disposing of the motion at this time.
[5] The motion is to be dismissed. The matters of which Mr. Mennes complains may well be unreasonable limits on his right of access to the courts. They may also be reasonable limits upon the applicant's rights in a free and democratic society, considering the applicant's history as a litigant. These issues cannot be adequately canvassed in a show cause motion. Such a motion requires proof of a court order or other court process, proof of the respondent's knowledge of the order or process and proof of a deliberate flouting of the court order or process. The nature of the allegations being made by the applicant do not lend themselves to trial in a summary proceeding like a show cause hearing. If the applicant believes that his fundamental rights are being violated, he has other remedies which are more suited to the nature of the allegations he makes.
ORDER
1- The applicant's motion is accepted for filing in action T-2351-00.
2- The motion for a show cause hearing is dismissed.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
Judge