Case information

Civil procedure – Pleadings – Statement of claim – Motion to strike – Whether Federal Court of Appeal applied wrong test on motion to strike – Whether Federal Court of Appeal drew a non-existing distinction between negligent “implementation” and “adjudication” by an administrative tribunal pursuant to Holland v. Saskatchewan, 2008 SCC 42, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551 – Whether “material proof” in pleadings is required to meet bad faith exception to immunity from civil action, pursuant to s. 156(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 – Whether Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction, in habeas corpus, in context of a Federal scheme, in this case, immigration, in accordance with Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants, Zhenhua Wang and Chunxiang Yan, alleged they were wrongfully arrested and unlawfully detained because of false information that the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“CIC”) officials knowingly or negligently relied upon in the prosecution of their immigration detentions. In their statement of claim, the applicants alleged that named and unnamed officials misrepresented evidence, conspired to deprive the applicants of a fair hearing and sought to punish the applicants for bringing refugee claims. The applicants sought damages against the numerous named and unnamed respondents.

The respondents sought to strike out the statement of claim filed by the applicants pursuant to r. 221 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, on the basis that it disclosed no viable cause of action. At the Federal Court, the motions judge allowed the motion to strike the statement of claim. Leave to amend or re-file the action was granted in part. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.