Summary
This document is the Plaintiff's Responding Motion Record filed in the Federal Court of Canada under Court File No. T-2559-26, concerning a motion to strike brought by the Defendant, His Majesty the King, represented by the Attorney General of Canada. The plaintiff in this legal action is Jean-Yves Landry, also known as Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry, who is self-represented and resides in Moncton, New Brunswick. The motion record addresses the defendant's motion to strike the Statement of Claim without leave to amend or, alternatively, for further and better particulars under Rule 181(2), with the matter determined in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. The document opens with formal court filings and a detailed table of contents listing the written representations, five sworn affidavits with corresponding documentary exhibits, an amended statement of claim, and a declaration regarding the use of artificial intelligence.
The primary purpose and scope of this motion record is to defend the viability of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the Crown. The core of the action stems from an administrative error where criminal charges of an indecent act and assault against the plaintiff, which were officially withdrawn in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick at Moncton on October 31, 2016, were incorrectly recorded in RCMP records and the Canadian Police Information Centre database as convictions. The indecent act entry was corrected in May 2023, while the assault entry remained in CPIC until July 2025. The plaintiff asserts that these false conviction records were relied upon by the Crown and presiding justices during bail hearings between 2016 and 2019, contributing to her pre-trial detention and deprivation of liberty.
The document is divided into multiple structured sections, including the plaintiff's written representations, which outline the factual background, points in issue, and legal submissions on the test for a motion to strike, vicarious liability under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and the reasonableness of causes of action in negligence, misfeasance in public office, and damages under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The written representations emphasize that the pleading must be read generously, especially for self-represented litigants, and that drafting deficiencies should be met with leave to amend rather than striking the action outright. The plaintiff notes that an Amended Statement of Claim was prepared under Rule 200 to remove previous requests for judicial review, false imprisonment claims, and unparticularized allegations of fraud while properly identifying Crown servants by position, office, and period.
The evidentiary foundation of the responding record is reinforced through five detailed affidavits sworn by Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry, accompanied by official exhibits. Affidavit A introduces a letter dated December 1, 2023, from Assistant Commissioner DeAnna L. Hill, Commanding Officer of the New Brunswick RCMP, acknowledging the administrative error. Affidavit B includes correspondence from Staff Sergeant Chantal Roger of the J Division Professional Responsibility Unit. Affidavit C contains an email thread with Corporal Yanick Soucy from RCMP Codiac Public Complaints, in which Cpl. Soucy apologized for a mistake made by a public service employee in 2016. Affidavit D features correspondence from Laura Armes, Director of Human Resources for the City of Moncton, clarifying that the person who made the mistake was a federal public service employee rather than a municipal worker. Affidavit E incorporates the original Provincial Court court sheet from October 31, 2016, proving that the charges were officially withdrawn by Crown prosecutor Éric Lalonde before Judge Jolène M. Richard.
Legal arguments within the representations further address the distinct requirements of the torts asserted. For negligence, the plaintiff relies on the established duty of care police owe in operational conduct under the principles of negligent investigation and record-keeping. For misfeasance in public office, the plaintiff restricts the claim to the period following September 2023 when RCMP officers had actual knowledge of the error through file reviews but deliberately maintained the false assault conviction entry in CPIC until July 2025, breaching duties under section 6(2) of the Privacy Act. Additionally, the Charter claim invokes sections 7, 9, and 11(e) regarding the right to liberty, protection against arbitrary detention, and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause, seeking compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages.
The record concludes with the specific orders sought by the plaintiff, which include dismissing the defendant's motion, declaring that the Amended Statement of Claim may be served and filed without leave or granting leave under Rule 75(1), ordering the defendant to file a statement of defence, and awarding costs. It also contains a comprehensive list of authorities citing key Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court jurisprudence such as R v Imperial Tobacco, Hunt v Carey Canada, Fitzpatrick v Codiac Regional RCMP Force, Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, and Vancouver (City) v Ward. Furthermore, a declaration regarding artificial intelligence complies with the Federal Court notice of May 7, 2024, confirming that generative AI was used to assist in drafting content while all exhibits remain authentic copies of official documents.
Legal researchers, self-represented litigants, civil rights advocates, and individuals studying federal court procedures, police record management errors, Crown liability, and constitutional damages will find this document exceptionally useful. It provides a comprehensive template and case study on how a self-represented plaintiff responds to a motion to strike in the Federal Court of Canada, detailing the precise legal drafting, evidentiary exhibits, and statutory arguments required to defend complex tort and Charter claims against the federal Crown.
