McMillan v. Canada
T-1124-92
Jerome A.C.J.
9/2/96
12 pp.
Application to strike statement of claim for failure to disclose cause of action; for summary judgment by reason of expiry of limitation period; for order to provide particulars of allegations-Plaintiff employed by RCMP from 1975 to resignation May 19, 1990-Statement of claim filed May 15, 1992-Alleging (1) sexual harassment by colleagues, unchecked by supervisors; (2) by permitting harassment causing pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, defendant breaching terms of employment contract; (3) breach of Charter right to be treated fairly, without discrimination based on sex-Application dismissed except portion of statement of claim alleging infringement of Charter rights struck out-(1) According to Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, s. 32 laws of Alberta apply as cause of action arising in that province-Limitation of Actions Act, ss. 51, 52 providing action for damages founded on breach of contract may be commenced within 2 years after cause of action arose-Plaintiff seeking recovery for alleged harm caused over ten-year period-Knowing had cause of action day of resignation-Action within limitation period-(2) Plaintiff providing four-page summary of two dozen incidents of alleged harassment-On application for further particulars, prothonotary ordering plaintiff to provide enumerated list of fourteen particulars, consisting of dates, names to enable Crown to narrow dates during which harassments took place for purposes of locating documents, interviewing individuals-Amended particulars providing names, dates as ordered-Without production of documents in care, possession of Crown, plaintiff not expected to remember minute details, dates of "continuous and general harassment"-Adequate disclosure provided-(3) Not settled law members of RCMP entering into employment contract-May be other issues of contract law which could apply to members of RCMP-Plaintiff should have opportunity to lead evidence at trial of unofficial discrimination at former workplace after full discovery, argument-(4) Regulations setting out code of conduct governing conduct of RCMP members-When those who oversaw duties of plaintiff acted in contravention thereof, acting outside authority, not on behalf of Crown-Charter not applying to common law unless basis of some governmental action: Hill v. The Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130-Plaintiff would not succeed at trial on Charter argument-Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50, ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 21), 3, 32 (as am. idem, s. 31)-Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, ss. 4(1)(c)(ii), 51, 52-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, SOR/88-361, s. 48 (as am. by SOR/94-219, s. 19)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-12, s. 25 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 8, s. 16)-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], s. 15-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C, c. 663, RR. 419, 427.