Skip to main content
Federal Court· 2003

Chicoine v. Canada

2003 FC 1267
Quebec civil lawJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Chicoine v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-10-30 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1267 File numbers T-821-03 Decision Content Date: 20031030 Docket: T-821-03 Citation: 2003 FC 1267 Montréal, Quebec, October 30, 2003 Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY BETWEEN: GUY CHICOINE Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Defendant Written motion by the plaintiff for leave to amend his statement of claim and other relief. REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] After reviewing the various written submissions of the parties, including the plaintiff's reply (filing of which is hereby authorized) to the respondent's motion record filed by the defendant against the motion at bar, the instant motion by the plaintiff must be dismissed with costs for the following reasons. [2] On the plaintiff's request for an amendment, I feel like the defendant that it is Rule 201 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 ("the Rules") which governs this application, not Rule 179, or indeed Rules 75 or 76 cited by the plaintiff. Rule 201 deals particularly with the filing of an amendment, which Rule 179 does not cover. [3] As to the application of Rule 201 in the case at bar, it is clear that the new cause of action which the plaintiff is seeking to introduce by his application for an amendment is not in any way based on the same facts as those cited in his statement of claim, as it stands at present. Accordingly, there is no basis for allowing these two causes of action based on diffe…

Read full judgment
Chicoine v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-10-30
Neutral citation
2003 FC 1267
File numbers
T-821-03
Decision Content
Date: 20031030
Docket: T-821-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1267
Montréal, Quebec, October 30, 2003
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
GUY CHICOINE
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
Written motion by the plaintiff for leave to amend his statement of claim and other relief.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] After reviewing the various written submissions of the parties, including the plaintiff's reply (filing of which is hereby authorized) to the respondent's motion record filed by the defendant against the motion at bar, the instant motion by the plaintiff must be dismissed with costs for the following reasons.
[2] On the plaintiff's request for an amendment, I feel like the defendant that it is Rule 201 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 ("the Rules") which governs this application, not Rule 179, or indeed Rules 75 or 76 cited by the plaintiff. Rule 201 deals particularly with the filing of an amendment, which Rule 179 does not cover.
[3] As to the application of Rule 201 in the case at bar, it is clear that the new cause of action which the plaintiff is seeking to introduce by his application for an amendment is not in any way based on the same facts as those cited in his statement of claim, as it stands at present. Accordingly, there is no basis for allowing these two causes of action based on different facts to be moved to this Court within the existing framework of the action already in the record.
[4] Consequently, the conclusion [translation] "Add facts subsequent to the initial statement of claim" clearly cannot be authorized.
[5] Additionally, for the reasons stated by the defendant in paragraphs 47 to 60 of her respondent's motion record filed against the motion at bar, the conclusion [translation] "Make an order against the defendant to ensure that the harassment will stop" cannot be allowed.
"Richard Morneau"
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-821-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: GUY CHICOINE
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
WRITTEN MOTION HEARD IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: October 30, 2003
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Guy Chicoine for the plaintiff
Sébastien Gagné for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca

Related cases