PRACTICE |
Judgments and Orders |
Summary Judgment |
MacNeil v. Canada
T-1092-95
Gibson J.
29/5/00
10 pp.
Application for summary judgment dismissing, or striking out, all or parts of plaintiff's amended statement of claim--In main action, plaintiff seeking substantial, special damages and interest, based upon actions of RCMP alleged to constitute invasions of privacy, breaches of confidence, unlawful interference with economic interests of plaintiff, abuse of public office and defamation, following plaintiff's resignation from RCMP in July 1991--Summary judgment principles stated in Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd., [1996] 2 F.C. 853 (T.D.)--However, Court has adopted more restrictive approach to applications for summary judgment in manner limiting responsibility of respondent on such motion to put "best foot forward" where issues of credibility, weighing of evidence and drawing of factual inferences present (see Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.)--Finally, Court has refused to grant summary judgment on basis limitation period has expired where, if mala fides as alleged here established in evidence, protection afforded by limitation period might be lost: Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Canada (1993), 66 F.T.R. 81 (F.C.T.D.); affd (1994), 170 N.R. 281 (F.C.A.)--Application for summary judgment dismissed--Credibility issues, weight of evidence issues and issues regarding reasonable factual inferences herein cannot satisfactorily be resolved on summary judgment application--Evidence demonstrating genuine issues for trial herein, notwithstanding fact it does not represent "best foot forward" on behalf of respondent/plaintiff--Issues including issue of limitation of claim in defamation (see Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. Canada)--Application to strike all or parts of amended statement of claim, and more particularly claim in defamation also dismissed--Bringing motion to strike more than four years after filing of original statement of claim "smacks of being downright cavalier, if not oppressive": McNair J. in Control Data Canada Ltd. v. Senstar Corp. (1998), 23 C.P.R. (3d) 421 (F.C.T.D.).