Marie Landry Spy Shop
← All Files Library statsThis document presents the plaintiff's responding motion record in the legal case Landry versus His Majesty the King, docketed as T-2559-26. The core subject matter of the presentation revolves around a severe administrative and systemic error that resulted in a 3,195-day deprivation of accuracy and liberty. Specifically, the document details how withdrawn charges from 2016 were erroneously recorded as convictions on national police databases such as CPIC and PROS due to a clerical mistake by a federal court section employee. This false record of violent and sexual offenses was subsequently accessed by Crown prosecutors during show-cause hearings, leading presiding justices to repeatedly deny the plaintiff reasonable bail over a period spanning nearly three years and resulting in approximately 1,000 days spent in custody. The document is structured as an analytical presentation supporting a responding motion record aimed at defeating a defendant's motion to strike. It breaks down the factual timeline, highlighting that while charges were officially withdrawn on October 31, 2016, before Judge Jolene M. Richard, they were simultaneously misrecorded as a guilty plea or conviction in the system. The presentation outlines the sequence of corrections over time, noting that the indecent act entry was corrected in May 2023 after 2,373 days, while the assault entry was corrected in July 2025 after 3,195 days. Furthermore, the document highlights admissions from RCMP officials, including S/Sgt. Chantal Roger and Asst. Commissioner DeAnna Hill, confirming that an administrative error had occurred within RCMP investigative file 2016-84414, though the RCMP initially attempted to deflect blame onto a municipal employee of the City of Moncton. Subsequent internal reviews by the City of Moncton confirmed that the individual was actually a federal public service employee, establishing federal Crown vicarious liability under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The document systematically addresses the legal hurdles required to defeat a motion to strike under Rule 221(1)(a). It argues that the amended statement of claim successfully cures previous drafting defects under Rule 200, provides a solid factual basis, and discloses three distinct, valid causes of action. The first cause of action establishes the tort of negligence, arguing that recording court dispositions into CPIC for bail hearings is an operational task rather than a policy decision, which breaches the duty of care established in Supreme Court jurisprudence like Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth. The second cause of action focuses on misfeasance in public office during a specific 20-month red zone from September 2023 to July 2025, during which RCMP officers had knowledge of the error yet deliberately kept the false assault conviction live in CPIC despite statutory duties under the Privacy Act to correct it. The third cause of action details Charter violations under Sections 7, 9, and 11(e), arguing that supplying false conviction records fabricated just cause for detention, directly contributing to arbitrary detention and the denial of reasonable bail. The document concludes by clarifying that the lawsuit is not an attack on court orders or judicial error, but rather targets the false records supplied by Crown servants. It requests specific procedural outcomes, including dismissing the defendant's motion to strike, permitting the amended statement of claim, and ordering a statement of defense, alongside monetary claims totaling millions of dollars in general, aggravated, and punitive damages. This resource is exceptionally useful for legal researchers, civil rights advocates, individuals studying Crown liability, and practitioners navigating administrative errors within law enforcement databases.
Readers can review this document to understand the procedural arguments and factual history involved in responding to a motion to strike in federal court. It serves as an example of analyzing systemic database errors and establishing legal causes of action for negligence, misfeasance, and Charter breaches. Legal professionals and researchers can examine its structural breakdown of damages and statutory duties under Canadian law.
| Filename | The Anatomy of a 3,195-Day Error.pdf |
| Category | document |
| File Size | 11.4 MB |
| Format | |
| Uploaded | Oct 31, 2026 |
| Views (people) | 6 |
The docket number for the case is T-2559-26.
The error persisted for 3,195 days in total, with the indecent act entry corrected after 2,373 days and the assault entry corrected after 3,195 days.
A court section employee erroneously entered withdrawn charges as convictions in RCMP file 2016-84414, which updated nationally across PROS and CPIC databases.
The three causes of action are Negligent Operational Conduct, Misfeasance in Public Office, and Charter Violations under Sections 7, 9, and 11(e).
The plaintiff requests the dismissal of the motion to strike, acceptance of the amended statement of claim, a defense within 30 days, and monetary damages including $2,500,000 in general damages, $750,000 in aggravated damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages.
Loading comments…
