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, styled 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 motion record responds directly to the Defendant's motion to strike the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, or alternatively for further and better particulars, which was determined in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules. The core subject matter of the proceeding addresses administrative errors in RCMP record-keeping systems where criminal charges of an indecent act and assault, which were officially withdrawn in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick at Moncton before Judge Jolène M. Richard on October 31, 2016, were erroneously recorded in the RCMP Police Reporting and Occurrence System (PROS) and the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database as convictions. These false records persisted for thousands of days, with the indecent act entry corrected in May 2023 and the assault entry remaining until July 2025.
Authored and self-represented by Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry in Moncton, New Brunswick, and dated October 28, 2026, the motion record contains a comprehensive set of legal representations, sworn affidavits, exhibits, 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. The document is structured into multiple tabs and sections designed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's amended pleading discloses reasonable causes of action and is neither frivolous, vexatious, nor an abuse of process. The methodology relies on establishing material facts through documentary evidence from the RCMP, the City of Moncton, and provincial court records, while invoking established Canadian legal principles and statutory provisions under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Courts Act, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The document begins with a table of contents outlining the written representations of the plaintiff at Tab 1, followed by six sworn affidavits labeled A through F from Tab 2 through Tab 7. Affidavit A incorporates Assistant Commissioner DeAnna L. Hill's December 1, 2023 letter acknowledging the administrative error. Affidavit B includes Staff Sergeant Chantal Roger's September 2023 correspondence regarding the Codiac detachment employee. Affidavit C features email correspondence with Corporal Yanick Soucy from September 2023 where the RCMP acknowledged that a mistake was made by a Public Service Employee back in 2016 regarding the disposition. Affidavit D contains correspondence from Laura Armes, Director of Human Resources for the City of Moncton, confirming that the individual who made the mistake was not a city employee but a federal public service employee. Affidavit E presents the October 31, 2016 provincial court sheet showing the withdrawal of charges, and Affidavit F details the plaintiff's request for provincial court records under reference JTC-26-015640.
Tab 8 houses the Amended Statement of Claim, which refines the action to seek remedies without attacking any underlying judicial orders. It details relief sought including a declaration under section 24(1) of the Charter for infringements of sections 7, 9, and 11(e), general damages of $2,500,000, aggravated damages of $750,000, and punitive damages of $250,000. The pleading identifies three groups of Crown servants: the court section employee who recorded the faulty disposition, the records custodians responsible for database accuracy between 2016 and 2025, and the reviewing officers who investigated the file in 2023. It articulates distinct causes of action in negligence for breaching the duty of care in maintaining accurate records, misfeasance in public office for deliberately maintaining false conviction entries after knowing of the error, and constitutional damages under section 24(1) of the Charter for contributions to arbitrary detention and denial of reasonable bail.
Tab 9 contains the mandatory declaration regarding the use of artificial intelligence in drafting the court documents, affirming that generative AI was utilized solely for drafting content while exhibits consist of authentic primary documents, and that all citations and facts were rigorously reviewed by the self-represented plaintiff. The record concludes with supplementary pages reproducing high-resolution images of Exhibit E and Exhibit F that failed to print in the physical commissioned copy, ensuring complete transparency and accessibility of the evidentiary record for judicial review. The legal submissions emphasize that under established jurisprudence such as R v Imperial Tobacco, Hunt v Carey Canada, Fitzpatrick v Codiac Regional RCMP Force, and Al Omani v Canada, pleadings must be read generously and striking a claim without leave is inappropriate when a cause of action is disclosed.
Researchers, legal practitioners, civil liberties advocates, and individuals studying police record management, administrative error rectification, and Charter litigation against the Crown will find this document exceptionally useful. It provides a detailed, real-world example of self-represented civil litigation in the Federal Court of Canada, illustrating how administrative inaccuracies in national police databases like CPIC intersect with pre-trial custody, bail hearings, constitutional rights, and statutory tort liability. The file serves as a valuable resource for understanding the practical application of federal court rules, the evidentiary requirements of motion records, and the procedural mechanisms for amending pleadings and managing documentary exhibits in complex institutional accountability cases.
Review the table of contents and written representations in Tab 1 to understand the plaintiff's legal arguments against the motion to strike. Examine Affidavits A through F and their corresponding exhibits in Tabs 2 through 7 to verify the documentary evidence regarding the RCMP and municipal admissions of administrative error. Consult the Amended Statement of Claim in Tab 8 to analyze the specific causes of action, material facts, and damages claimed. Refer to Tab 9 and the concluding exhibit reproductions for compliance with AI declaration rules and complete evidentiary verification.
| Filename | T-2559-26_Plaintiffs_Responding_Motion_Record_FINALSIGNED.pdf |
| Category | document |
| File Size | 22.3 MB |
| Format | |
| Uploaded | Oct 29, 2026 |
| Views (people) | 14 |
The proceeding addresses administrative errors by RCMP personnel who recorded withdrawn criminal charges from October 31, 2016, as convictions in police databases (PROS and CPIC), and the resulting impact on the plaintiff's bail hearings and pre-trial custody.
The amended pleading asserts causes of action in negligence, misfeasance in public office, and constitutional damages under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for infringements of sections 7, 9, and 11(e).
The RCMP acknowledged the error through multiple communications, including letters and emails from S/Sgt. Chantal Roger, Cpl. Yanick Soucy, and Assistant Commissioner DeAnna L. Hill in 2023, confirming that a public service employee erroneously recorded a court disposition as a conviction.
No. Following an internal review, Laura Armes, Director of Human Resources for the City of Moncton, confirmed in December 2024 that the individual who made the mistake in 2016 was not a city employee but a Public Service Employee of the Federal Government.
The plaintiff is asking the court to dismiss the defendant's motion to strike, declare that she may serve and file her Amended Statement of Claim without leave (or grant leave under Rule 75(1)), require a statement of defence within 30 days, and award costs.
Loading comments…
