Steeves v. Canada
T-133-95
Hargrave P.
27/4/95
13 pp.
Motion by Crown to strike out statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action pursuant to R. 324 -- Plaintiff, inmate working in institution while serving sentence, claiming wrongful dismissal, Charter violations and torts of intimidation and intentional infliction of nervous shock as a result of employment termination -- Defendant arguing relationship between penitentiary institute and inmate employer-employee relationship -- Employer and employee not legal terms of art but rather questions and conclusions of law: Court characterizing relationship by fact, not by parties' choice of terms -- Plaintiff may have employee status on basis of one of proposed tests regarding determination of employment relationship -- Open for plaintiff, as employee, to plead wrongful dismissal: unable to say such action doomed to fail -- Plaintiff pleading double jeopardy: penalties imposed constituting more than one punitive action -- Charter, s. 11(h) rule against double jeopardy not applicable as plaintiff not charged with any offence -- However, as double jeopardy rule also common law plea, not clear and obvious such plea not succeeding -- Statement of claim paragraph relating to plaintiff's right to make representations regarding termination decision not including enough particulars or material to set out cause of action or to enable defendant to properly answer and will thus be struck -- Plaintiff pleading Charter, s. 7 breach -- Although s. 7 not extending to economic rights and thus probably not to wrongful dismissal, s. 7 plea applicable to wrongful confinement claim -- Defendant submitting rights alleged by plaintiff pursuant to s. 7 not specific right or freedom guaranteed under Charter and thus not giving rise to Charter, s. 24 remedy -- Creation of s. 7 right without making it amenable to s. 24 remedy antitheses to concept of Charter; courts ought to be able to give remedies when Charter infringed -- Although deprivation of fundamental justice leaving plea not ideally drafted, Court obliged to read statement of claim as generously as possible: not plain and obvious relevant claim cannot succeed -- Plaintiff's claim of psychological stress and emotional confusion most akin to tort of psychiatric damage-Impact rule with respect to psychiatric damage debased in favour of type of damage and reasonable foresight considerations-Plaintiff's claim for nervous shock or psychiatric damage lacking three requirements: (1) substantial certainty of nervous shock; (2) foreseeability by reasonable person; (3) recognizable psychiatric illness -- Claim for psychiatric damage struck -- In alternative Crown seeking leave to object to plaintiff proceeding before court rather than by way of grievance procedure pursuant to Act -- No requirement to exhaust grievance procedure pursuant to Regulations before resorting to legal remedy -- Alternative relief dismissed -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 324 -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11, (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], ss. 7, 11(h) -- Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20.