Marie Landry Spy Shop
← All Files Library statsThis document represents the official legal filing of the Defendant's Reply Submissions in the matter of Jean-Yves Landry, also known as Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry, acting as the plaintiff and responding party, versus His Majesty the King, serving as the defendant and moving party, under Federal Court docket number T-2559-26. Filed by the Attorney General of Canada through counsel Amy Smeltzer on November 6, 2026, the document provides the moving party's detailed responses to the plaintiff's opposing motion record and written representations. The core purpose of the filing is to support the defendant's ongoing motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim pursuant to Rules 221(a), (c), (f) and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, while simultaneously arguing against granting the plaintiff leave to amend the claim.
The submission begins by addressing preliminary matters, specifically requesting that the plaintiff's submitted Affidavits A, B, C, D, and E be entirely disregarded by the court. The defendant argues that these affidavits improperly introduce evidence to support allegations made within the filed claim, directly breaching Rule 221(2) which stipulates that no evidence shall be heard on a motion for an order under paragraph (1)(a). Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the contents of these affidavits fail to respond meaningfully to the issues surrounding Rules 221(c) and (f), such as whether the action constitutes an abuse of process through a collateral attack or is frivolous and vexatious due to a failure to plead material facts.
A significant portion of the text focuses on the plaintiff's request for leave to amend the Statement of Claim. The plaintiff seeks to replace the entire original document with a proposed amended claim demanding millions of dollars in damages. These damages include $2.5 million in general damages for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and breaches of sections 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alongside $750,000 in aggravated damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. The document notes that these financial claims purportedly stem from database entry errors made by an RCMP civilian employee back in 2016, which incorrectly recorded the plaintiff as having pleaded guilty to two charges that were actually withdrawn and subsequently corrected.
The defendant argues extensively that leave to amend should be denied because the proposed changes fail to cure the foundational defects or introduce any legally viable claims. The submission underscores that the essence of the plaintiff's claim remains a prohibited collateral attack on judicial remand and assessment orders. While the plaintiff's representations deny any intent to overturn such orders, the defendant highlights that seeking civil damages for loss of liberty directly resulting from judicial orders constitutes a collateral attack on the legal effects of those orders themselves, citing established jurisprudence such as Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. and Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E.
In addition to the collateral attack argument, the defendant contends that the proposed amended statement of claim fails to disclose any recognizable cause of action in tort. It lacks the necessary material facts establishing that any tortious conduct by the defendant served as the factual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries, or that the alleged injuries are compensable in tort law. The submission points out that assertions regarding loss of liberty are bald, speculative, and conclusory, noting that any detention was the legal consequence of lawful assessment and remand orders rather than database errors. Similar deficiencies are noted regarding the claims of misfeasance in public office and negligence, as the plaintiff fails to establish a duty of care, foreseeability, or the requisite high threshold of deliberate misconduct.
Finally, the document addresses the newly introduced allegations under section 11(e) of the Charter concerning the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. The defendant argues that the amended claim lacks fundamental material facts regarding when, by whom, and under what charges bail was denied, and notes that the claim is statute-barred under the two-year limitation period established by the Limitation of Actions Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The defendant concludes by requesting an order striking the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, supported by a complete list of authorities and legislation cited throughout the text.
Researchers and legal professionals can review this document to understand the standard defense arguments regarding motions to strike in the Federal Court of Canada. It serves as an example of how counsel addresses attempts to amend defective pleadings, collateral attacks on judicial orders, and claims involving historical database errors. Readers can examine the cited jurisprudence and statutory provisions to analyze how limitation periods and tort principles apply to Crown liability cases.
| Filename | Defendant's Reply Submissions – Landry v. HMK – T-2559-26.pdf |
| Category | document |
| File Size | 237.5 KB |
| Format | |
| Uploaded | Nov 7, 2026 |
| Views (people) | 0 |
The main objective is to support the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim pursuant to Rules 221(a), (c), (f) and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules and to argue against granting leave to amend.
The defendant argues they introduce evidence to support allegations in the filed claim in breach of Rule 221(2), which prohibits hearing evidence on a motion under paragraph (1)(a), and that the evidence is unresponsive to the issues.
The defendant argues that the claim is a prohibited collateral attack on judicial remand and assessment orders, as seeking civil damages for loss of liberty attacks the legal effects of those lawful orders.
The plaintiff alleges negligence and misfeasance in public office, along with breaches of sections 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The defendant invokes the two-year limitation period established by section 5(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, SNB 2009, applicable via section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Loading comments…
