Marie Landry Spy Shop
← All Files Library statsThis document is the official Plaintiff's Responding Motion Record filed in the Federal Court of Canada under Court File No. T-2559-26, concerning the matter between Jean-Yves Landry (also known as Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry) as the plaintiff and responding party, and His Majesty the King as the defendant and moving party. The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend, or alternatively for further and better particulars under Rule 181(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, with the motion determined in writing under Rule 369. The responding party is self-represented and maintains her primary address in Moncton, New Brunswick, while the defendant is represented by counsel from the Atlantic Regional Office of the Department of Justice in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The core of the action centers on an administrative error that occurred following a court appearance on October 31, 2016, in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick at Moncton before Judge Jolène M. Richard. During this appearance, Crown prosecutor Éric Lalonde withdrew criminal charges against the plaintiff—specifically an indecent act under section 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and an assault under section 266 under occurrence file 2016-84414 and case 33094001—with no finding of guilt ever made. Despite this official court disposition of withdrawn, the RCMP incorrectly recorded the outcome in their Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) and the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database as convictions. The indecent act entry remained uncorrected for approximately 2,373 days until May 2023, while the assault entry remained in CPIC until July 2025, spanning approximately 3,195 days.
The document details the plaintiff's subsequent legal history and the reliance on these erroneous records during subsequent bail hearings between 2016 and 2019, where she faced further charges including mischief, taking a motor vehicle without consent, assault, and possession of cannabis. During these bail proceedings, Crown prosecutors relied on CPIC records that falsely represented her as having convictions for a sexual offence and an offence of violence, contributing to her pre-trial detention across facilities such as the Shediac Correctional Centre and the Restigouche Hospital Centre for approximately 1,000 total days. The plaintiff subsequently filed complaints with the RCMP and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP in 2023, prompting written acknowledgements from RCMP officials including S/Sgt. Chantal Roger, Cpl. Yanick Soucy, and Assistant Commissioner DeAnna L. Hill confirming that an administrative error had occurred in recording the 2016 disposition.
Structured across multiple tabs and affidavits, the motion record includes written representations from the plaintiff, sworn affidavits designated as Affidavits A through F, an Amended Statement of Claim, and a formal declaration regarding the use of artificial intelligence pursuant to the Federal Court's May 7, 2024 Notice. Affidavit A presents the December 1, 2023 letter from Assistant Commissioner DeAnna L. Hill confirming the administrative error and corrective directions. Affidavit B outlines the correspondence from S/Sgt. Chantal Roger regarding the public complaint process under Part VII of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Affidavit C contains email correspondence from Cpl. Yanick Soucy acknowledging the 2016 mistake by a public service employee. Affidavit D features documentation from the City of Moncton and Human Resources Director Laura Armes clarifying that the individual responsible was a federal public service employee rather than a municipal worker. Affidavit E provides the original Provincial Court sheet from October 31, 2016, showing the withdrawn disposition. Affidavit F details the plaintiff's October 16, 2026 requests for criminal court records from the Moncton registry.
The legal submissions argue that the Amended Statement of Claim discloses reasonable causes of action in negligence, misfeasance in public office, and damages under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for infringements of sections 7, 9, and 11(e). The plaintiff asserts that the Crown is vicariously liable under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act for the actions of RCMP members and federal public service employees responsible for maintaining CPIC records. The document argues that police owe a duty of care in recording operational court dispositions accurately, that the defendants maintained false records with knowledge of the error after September 2023, and that the claims do not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on any judicial order since no conviction or bail order is sought to be set aside or varied.
In terms of relief sought, the plaintiff asks the Federal Court to dismiss the defendant's motion to strike, grant leave or declare that she may file her Amended Statement of Claim without leave pursuant to Rule 200, direct the defendant to file a statement of defence within thirty days, and award costs or order each party to bear its own costs. The document concludes with a comprehensive list of legislation and case law relied upon, including decisions such as the Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, Vancouver v. Ward, and R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., alongside Federal Court jurisprudence such as Fitzpatrick v. Codiac Regional RCMP Force.
This litigation record serves as a valuable resource for legal researchers, scholars, self-represented litigants, and civil rights advocates examining police record-keeping errors, CPIC data integrity, administrative accountability within federal policing agencies, and the intersection of tort law with Charter remedies in Canadian federal courts.
Read the written representations and legal arguments in Tab 1 to understand the plaintiff's position on the motion to strike. Examine Affidavits A through F and their corresponding exhibits for the documentary evidence and correspondence from the RCMP and City of Moncton. Review the Amended Statement of Claim at Tab 8 to inspect the pleaded material facts, causes of action, and relief sought.
| Filename | 446fd8c9-ac29-4731-9a8f-764fae8431e6.pdf |
| Category | document |
| File Size | 22.3 MB |
| Format | |
| Uploaded | Nov 5, 2026 |
| Views (people) | 4 |
The action concerns an administrative error where criminal charges withdrawn in October 2016 were incorrectly recorded in RCMP databases and CPIC as convictions, remaining uncorrected for years and impacting the plaintiff's bail hearings.
The plaintiff pleads negligence, misfeasance in public office, and constitutional damages under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for violations of sections 7, 9, and 11(e).
Yes. RCMP officials including S/Sgt. Chantal Roger, Cpl. Yanick Soucy, and Assistant Commissioner DeAnna L. Hill acknowledged in writing that an administrative error was made in 2016 regarding occurrence file 2016-84414.
The plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss the defendant's motion to strike, permit the filing of the Amended Statement of Claim, require the defendant to file a statement of defence, and award costs.
Loading comments…
