|
 |
|
|
|
Reported CasesAreas of Law considered in this case: - Proceedings against the Crown - Civil Litigation - Vexatious Litigation Proceedings - Civil Procedure - Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure - Proceedings Against the Crown Act Khan v. Leluk, [1985] O.J. No. 578 At the relevant time the Honourable Nicholas Leluk M.P.P. was the provincial Minister of Correctional Services and Kay Burford was a senior civil servant in the Ministry of Correctional Services. Pamela Khan represented herself, and sued Leluk and Burford for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, punitive damages and damages for loss of privacy. As is evident from the reasons of Mr. Justice Gray, there were two court appearances, and one adjournment before Mr. Justice Gray disposed of my clients' motion under Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the actions against them dismissed. As one of my three points of argument, I argued a valid and technical defence to Ms. Khan's action against the provincial government. Ms. Khan had not complied with the requirement to give notice under section 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. That section said that all actions commenced against the provincial government, without notice were nullities, [or legally invalid]. Ms. Khan then responded that section 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was therefore unconstitutional [and of no legal force and effect] therefore she did not have to give the notice that section 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act requires. When called upon for reply to Ms. Khan's argument I brought to the attention of the Judge, as an officer of the Court, and as Counsel from the Crown Law Office - Civil, the Rule that requires all litigants and their counsel, to deliver notice to the Ministry of the Attorney General that they are raising a constitutional challenge to the government's legislation. Ms. Khan had not delivered such a notice. Mr. Justice Gray also dismissed or struck out Ms. Khan's lawsuit because the written record, satisfied him that Ms. Khan was abusing the process of the court by continuing to issue and serve lawsuits. It is usually very difficult to convince a judge that a litigant is litigating for improper motives. In this case, the extensive written record filed helped Justice Gray made the order that my client was seeking. Where possible, I have always filed an extensive written record in order to fully advocate my client's position, and provide the Judge with every possible bit [scintilla in legalese] of evidence on which to find in my client's favour. Despite resounding success on my clients' behalf, Mr. Justice Gray exercised his discretion [for reasons that he did not mention specifically, and which he was not required to mention] and did not award any costs payable by Ms. Khan, although the general rule of thumb is that the loser should pay some portion of the winner's costs. Collecting costs has always been, and still remains, a challenging part of every lawsuit.
|
OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Linda Kolyn, LL.B. 
|
|
|
Web Site Contents Copyright © 2004-2021 Linda H. Kolyn, LL.B. All Rights Reserved. |
|
WEB SITE PRIVACY POLICY |
|
