J. WILTON LITTLECHILD, M.P. v. Citizens of Canada

 

      J. WILTON LITTLECHILD, M.P. v. Citizens of Canada

Docket No. 9012000725

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL

DISTRICT OF WETASKIWIN

BETWEEN:

ERIN WALL, PIETER BROER, IRENE LOVELL, JOE KURTA

JAMES MANN, KEITH BEEBE, LYLE LINK, and DALE HATALA

as and for the constituency of Wetaskiwin and the Citizens of

Canada

PLAINTIFFS

- and –

J. WILTON LITTLECHILD, M.P.

DEFENDANT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Wetaskiwin, Alberta

10th December, A.D. 1990

Proceedings taken in The Court of Queen's Bench, Law Courts,

Wetaskiwin, Alberta.

10th December 1990

The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall Justice of The Court

of Queen's Bench of Alberta

E. Molstad, Esq. For the Defendant

E. Wall For the Plaintiffs

Official Court Record THE COURT:

Thank you.

Well as you suggested and conceded Ms. Wall, it appears clear

to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck out -- that

legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief

which has been sought.

Counsel for Mr. Littlechild have outlined the law.

The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr.

Littlechild to consult with the constituency

members and a failure on his part to account to them, further

failing to ascertain their views in voting for the government's

goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent

their views in his voting for the government's goods and

services tax.

It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the

part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the

authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been

cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to

whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must give the

benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the

application and leave the matter to be decided at a trial.

However, I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action

against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected

representative at any level of government to consult with his

constituents or determine their views. While such an

obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no

legal requirement.

I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation

case, where he said:

"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government

that our elected representatives should be able to perform

their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of (the Government of)

Canada ( Inc.), free from any worry of being called to account

anywhere except in parliament.

So, it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the

Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in

the right to vote in a future election.

I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty

They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to

account to the Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in

parliament. I would be inclined to strike the Statement of

Claim on that paragraph as well. But I note they do make a

prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem just which

probably is general enough that the action could not be

struck out on that account alone.

So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to

account to his constituents and just to show you what really

occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming

for the moment is that everything you have said in the

Statement of Claim is correct. Even if that is all true the

Court can't give you assistance because in the drafting and

the exercise in the use of our constitution through the

decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of

Confederation and others that M.P.'s must be given a right to

carry out their duties without any worry about being called to

account during their term of office..

That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take

judicial notice of the Act which relates to Members of

Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Act, that the members

of the House of Commons enjoy all the privileges and

immunities of Members of Parliament, Parliament of the

United Kingdom. So, under the circumstances I am dismissing - - or I am allowing the application to strike out the Statement of Claim

and it will be struck out accordingly      

Subscribe thank You https://www.youtube.com/@constitutionalconventions6240

Subscribe to We the People Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1516344

Subscribe to Constitutional Conventions on Rumble https://rumble.com/user/ConstitutionalConventions

Subscribe to get important Information

https://constitutionalconventions.ca/contact/ - ensure you get confirmation - check spam or junk mail.

Zoom 5-10 EST daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09 SwT80SwT8

https://rumble.com/v4govwc-facts-vs-fiction-know-who-owns-the-land-not-canada-or-their-corrup-peice-of.html

info@ConstitutionalConventions.ca