Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
and
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you
are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle
you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
2
DATE:
ISSUED BY:____________________
I. CLAIM
$6,500,000;
amount of $300,000 as
related benefits;
$1,000,000;
Canada Act;
amended;
II. PARTIES
2. The Plaintiff, Senator Michael Dennis Duffy (Senator Duffy), was appointed to
the Senate of Canada on January 26, 2009, representing the province of Prince Edward
Island. At all material times he was a member of the Senate of Canada (the Senate).
3. The Defendant, the Senate, is the upper house of the Parliament of Canada. The
Senate consists of 105 senators appointed by the Governor General. The Senate was
established pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867. The Senate is responsible in law for its
actions and/ or decisions as well it is vicariously liable for the actions and/ or decisions of
its members and committees, and sub committees whether those actions and/ or decisions
4. The Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada (AGC), is named in place of the
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (the Crown) who is the sovereign of Canada
and is liable for damages in respect of torts committed by servants of the Crown, pursuant
to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, RSC 1985, c. C-50. The Crown is also liable
5. The AGC is liable for the damages in respect of torts committed by the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (the RCMP) pursuant to the Crown Liability and Proceedings
Act, RSC 1985, c. C-50. The AGC is also liable for damages in respect of violation of
constitutionally protected rights by officers, agents and servants of the RCMP, pursuant to
III. FACTS
6. On the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor General summoned Michael
Dennis Duffy to the Senate on January 26, 2009, to represent the province of Prince
Edward Island (PEI). Senator Duffy was to enjoy security of tenure until the age of 75.
7. Section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867, sets out the conditions by which an
individual may qualify to be a senator. For senators of every province, except for Quebec,
they must be at least 30 years old, be a citizen, own property in the province of appointment
and have a worth of over $4000 above debts and liabilities. Such an individual shall be
8. Senator Duffy was born on May 27, 1946 in PEI. His family has long and deep
family roots in the province. He can trace his PEI family roots back to 1844. His
grandparents were born there, his parents were born there, his siblings were born there. He
was raised and schooled in PEI. Like so many born and bred Maritimers, as a youth,
Senator Duffy left his home in search of a career. In 1971 he relocated to Ottawa, Ontario
journalism, his family and roots remained in PEI. He returned to the province constantly to
visit family.
7
specializing in political life in Canada. Against the odds, he persevered and ultimately
10. From 1971 until his 2009 appointment to the Senate, Senator Duffy worked in
Ottawa as a radio and TV journalist. Due to his employment, Senator Duffy lived in
Ottawa.
11. In 1998, while still working in Ottawa, Senator Duffy and his wife purchased their
intended permanent residence at 10 Friendly Lane, Cavendish Beach, PEI. They did not
intend to permanently reside in Ottawa once Senator Duffys retired from his journalism
career.
12. Senator Duffys life as a journalist ended with his 2009 appointment as Senator for
13. When told of his appointment, Senator Duffy actively made inquiries and was
McCreery, constitutional advisor to the Senate leader Marjore LeBreton that once he
declared PEI his province of residence and owned land in PEI, then, upon his appointment,
he would be qualified to represent PEI in the Senate. Indeed, he was told that he could sit as
senators whose main residence was at least 100km away from Ottawa, were expected to
8
maintain a residence in the National Capital Region. While Senator Duffys residence in
PEI remained his residence in the province for which he was appointed, his home in
Kanata, Ontario, became his residence while attending to his duties at the Senate.
15. As a result of his appointment, Senator Duffy was able to claim per diem expenses
related to residing away from his PEI residence. Senator Duffy was advised by Senator
Tkachuk, then Vice-Chair of the Senate standing committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration (the CIBA) Committee, that he should claim per diem expenses as
other PEI senators do, given that PEI was where his provincial residence was.
16. In late 2012, the media began publishing articles about Senate expense claims. This
ignited a slow-burning political storm which eventually became a major political issue for
the government and the powerful Prime Ministers Office (the PMO).
17. Nigel Wright, at the time the Prime Ministers Chief of Staff, spearheaded the PMO
18. On November 22, 2012, the CIBA created the Subcommittee on Living
19. Senator Duffy actively sought advice from the top authorities to confirm that his
actions were within the rules. Throughout December 2012 and January 2013 both Nigel
Wright and, Senator Tkachuk, stated that Senator Duffys expense claims were entirely
within the rules and that there was no reason for him not to claim housing allowance for his
9
Ottawa home. He was, however, urged not to speak out against the media stories in the
20. As of January 2013, the PMO and the Senate leadership were all fine with Senator
Duffys 4 years of living expense claims as being entirely within the rules.
21. However the story did not leave the media spotlight.
22. Suddenly, in February 2013, in an effort to end the political damage to Prime
Minister Harper, the PMO stopped adhering to its hands off approach to the issue, and
instead entered into the fray in order to extract what they believed would be a resolution to
23. On February 7, 2013, the PMO decided to enact a new political strategy what they
termed the mistake-repay strategy. The strategy engaged Nigel Wright, the PMOs Issues
Manager Chris Woodcock, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator LeBreton,
and the Chair of CIBA, Senator Tkachuk, and the majority of the Steering committee of
CIBA
24. A two-pronged strategy was hatched over the course of that day:
apologize.
25. The intended purpose of the Forced Scenario was to end the public agony of this
story remaining in the media cycle. The PMO response was a calculated effort to politically
limit any further bleeding damage to the government and, in particular, Prime Minister
Harper.
26. Right from the start, Senator Duffy resisted the Forced Scenario, on the principled
27. Senator Duffy retained lawyer Janice Payne to advise him as a result of the pressure
28. On February 14, 2013, the CIBA confirmed that they had engaged Deloitte, an
of Senator Duffys expense and living claims from April 1, 2011 to Sept 30, 2012.
29. Deloittes specific mandate was to analyze Senator Duffys expenses in reference
to the Senates very own rules and practices. There were specifically asked to review:
supporting documentation
occurred
Committee.
30. Despite the Deloitte audit, the behind the scenes scheming of the PMO continued as
31. On February 19, 2013, Nigel Wright wrote to Senator LeBreton and advised that he
had prior approval that the Conservative Party would pay the expenses in question on
32. On February 20, 2013, Nigel Wright told Senator Duffy that if he didnt take a dive
on the expenses, the Senate committee would rule that he was not a resident of PEI and
therefore disqualify him from sitting as a Senator. This was the ultimate pressure put to
33. Over the next few days there were a litany of emails back and forth between
Senator Duffys lawyer, Nigel Wright and members of the PMO. The PMO scripted press
releases on behalf of Senator Duffy. Senator Duffy continued to maintain his innocence
and express his resistance to stating that his expenses were wrongly claimed. He refused to
34. On February 27, 2013, the PMO became aware that the Senate was looking for a
35. Justice Vaillancourt later found that Senator Duffy was kicking and screaming to
have the issues dealt with in an appropriate forum. However, as a result of the coordinated
and threatening efforts of the PMO, his free will was overwhelmed and he capitulated.
Justice Vaillancourt ruled that the entire Forced Scenario was not for the benefit of Senator
Duffy but rather, for the benefit of the government and the PMO. It was political damage
36. After being threatened, cajoled, arm-twisted and rebuked, Senator Duffy
capitulated to the Forced Scenario. He was extorted into agreeing to release a statement
that he had claimed amounts in error and that he would pay the amounts back, a statement
that would deceive the Canadian public and the Tory base. Even the repayment was a
fiction: Nigel Wright had agreed to pay the $90k Senator Duffy fictitiously owed.
37. The political interference continued. On March 1, 2013, Nigel Wright wrote to
Senator Stewart Olsen to advise he had seen the CIBAs draft report and he asked for four
38. The PMO then began to exert its influence to get Deloitte to abandon its audit of
Senator Duffy. On March 1, 2013, Nigel Wright wrote to Benjamin Perrin and members of
the PMO with regard to the Deloitte examination. At the PMOs request, Senator Gerstein
attempted to influence the Deloitte audit through back-room channels. He was asked to
work through senior contacts at Deloitte to have them report that if Senator Duffys
primary residence is in Ottawa, then he would owe approximately $90,000, but that since
Senator Duffy has committed to repaying this amount, then Deloittes determination of
39. On March 8, 2013, Nigel Wright wrote to Chris Woodcock, the PMO Director of
Issues Management, in response to a query from Jordan Press, parliamentary reporter for
Mr. Wright stated that the Party will not be paying Senator Duffys expenses. He then
40. On March 21, 2013, the PMO reported on Senator Gersteins efforts. Senator
Gersteins attempt to influence the Deloitte investigation failed. Senator Gerstein advised
that he had information from Deloitte that Deloitte would not change its opinion based on
any repayment by Senator Duffy because they were asked to provide their opinion on
residency. The decision was made that Senator Duffy should not engage with Deloitte.
41. On March 25, 2013, Nigel Wright delivered a cheque for $90k to Janice Paynes
42. On that same day, Nigel Wright wrote to the members of the PMO and stated that
he could say that the facts as they know them do not warrant a referral of the matter to the
RCMP.
43. On April 22, 2013, Senator Duffy wrote to Deloitte to answer some of their
questions. Nigel Wright was against Senator Duffy communicating in any way with
Deloitte and communicated that to members of CIBA. As a result, on April 24, 2013, the
CIBA told Senator Duffy that he could not meet with Deloitte.
44. On May 9, 2013, the Deloitte report on Senator Duffys expense claims was
business;
registered residence.
guidelines.
45. The Deloitte report found that there was a lack of clarity and terminology used in
the rules. Indeed, the regulations and guidelines applicable did not include criteria for
determining primary residence. As such it was impossible to assess the status of Senator
Duffys primary residence against the rules and guidelines. Other than one small clerical
error, Deloitte could not find that any of Sen. Duffys living claims were inappropriate.
16
46. On that same day, May 9, 2013, the CIBA, on receipt of the Deloitte report,
presented its own report to the Senate (the Twenty-Second Report). It recommended that
the living expenses claimed by Senator Duffy dating back to his appointment had been
properly claimed and that the living and travel expenses submitted by Senator Duffy be
monitored on a going forward basis for the period of not less than one year.
48. On May 14, 2013 the media began raising questions about how Senator Duffy
repaid the $90k to the Senate. Nigel Wright wrote that the Prime Minister knew in broad
terms that he had personally assisted Senator Duffy with the repayment. The decision was
effected to avoid further political embarrassment to the government and Prime Minister
Harper.
49. On May 16, 2013 the news media broke the story that Nigel Wright wrote a
50. This revelation created uproar in the public, the media, and the government and in
the Senate.
51. On May 19, 2013, Nigel Wright resigned as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister.
52. On May 29, 2013, the CIBA, on orders from the PMO, released a new
whole. This report dramatically rewrote the Twenty-Second Report to state that Senator
Duffys living expenses and living allowance should not have been claimed. In addition,
17
the CIBA referred to Senators Duffys repayment of $90k to the proper authorities for
investigation.
53. The CIBA received no new information from Deloitte prior to the dramatic revision
of the CIBAs opinion. The same Deloitte report was used to justify two radically different
determinations: that Senator Duffys expenses were validly claimed versus that Senator
Duffys expenses were wrongly claimed and his actions should be referred to the RCMP
for investigation.
54. Justice Vaillancourt, in R. v. Duffy, [2016] OJ No. 2033 would later review these
same expenses. He concluded that when Senator Duffy designated his primary residence as
PEI and made living expense claims for his NCR residence he committed no prohibited
act, violated no Senate rules and did not in all circumstances commit the actus reus of
fraud.
55. Justice Vaillancourt also found that when Senator Duffy made his primary
residence designation and his living expense claims he did so based on:
on Internal Economy;
residence;
resident of PEI.
56. Justice Vaillancourt also found, as did Deloitte, that all of Senator Duffys travel
57. On October 17, 2013, Senator Carignan, then Leader of the Government in the
Senate, moved that Senator Duffy be suspended for what he alleged was "gross
negligence" in the management of his parliamentary resources and that, during the period
any sessional allowance or living allowance and pension accrual, be withheld, and that
19
Senator Duffy be denied the right to use Senate resources and that he not receive any other
58. This so called suspension was in effect an expulsion that went well beyond any
power that the Senate had to either regulate its internal proceedings or to discipline its
members.
59. The expulsion created a vacancy in the Senate, on a basis outside the Senates
statutory authority.
60. The expulsion and the withholding of sessional allowance etc. deprived Senator
Duffy of remuneration was unnecessary for the proper functioning of the Senate and was
61. The expulsion implemented the resolution of the Senate outside Parliament and
affected the rights outside Parliament of Senator Duffy and the people of Prince Edward
62. The expulsion was affected for an improper purpose and was therefore without
63. The "gross negligence" alleged was the accrual of expenses said to be not in
accordance with the Senate Administrative Rules, policies or guidelines. The PMO had
said the expenses claimed were within the rules. Deloitte had said the expenses claimed
were within the rules. Even the CIBA had said the expenses claimed were within the rules.
20
64. Senator Duffy attended at the Senate in October and November 2013, to try to
defend himself from the motion for suspension, despite his doctors orders that he should
not be working.
65. On November 5, 2013, the Senate voted in favour of Senator Duffys suspension,
an exercise of power that had never been exercised before except in the face of criminal
66. Senator Duffys suspension was made in the absence of a hearing on the charge of
according to law, in the absence of a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and to fundamental
justice.
67. On June 4, 2015, the Auditor General of Canada reported to the Senate that 30
Senators, not including Senator Duffy, were found to have incurred expenses that were
determined not to be in accordance with the applicable Senate rules, policies or guidelines,
68. Not one of those 30 Senators, who included Senator Carignan who had moved the
motion against Senator Duffy, was accused of "gross negligence", suspended, denied
sessional allowance, living allowance, pension accrual, or use of Senate resources or any
69. Only Senator Duffy was punished in the absence of procedural fairness, and then
70. Senator Duffys suspension had no limits. Due to the Senates actions, Senator
Duffys place in the Senate became vacant: not for a day, or a week, or even a month. The
vacancy was indefinite until Parliament was prorogued - a date which was unknown at the
time. His suspension continued until August 5, 2015 when Parliament was prorogued
71. During all this time, Prince Edward Island did not have its full complement of
72. At the time of prorogation in August, 2015, Senator Duffy had been charged with a
criminal offence. His suspension continued until he was acquitted of all charges on April
21, 2016.
73. The RCMP investigation into Senate expenses included the investigation into Nigel
Wright due to the $90k payment and for exerting pressure on the Senate sub-committee to
74. As pertaining to Nigel Wright, the RCMP had been considering charges of breach
of trust, frauds on the government, bribery of a judicial officer and Parliament of Canada
offences.
75. On June 13, 2013, Nigel Wrights lawyer, Patrick McCann, contacted the RCMP
and advised that at the time Mr. Wright provided the $90k payment, he was unaware of any
fraudulent expense claims on Senator Duffys behalf. He also indicated he was willing to
76. On March 18, 2014, two RCMP officers interviewed Nigel Wright in the presence
of his lawyers. The purpose was to ascertain whether he could be a witness and provide
Senator Duffys calendar. After the interview, Nigel Wright was advised that the RCMP
had no intention to charge him but that they expected to call him as a witness.
77. At least twice in the many months prior to charges being laid, Don Bayne, lawyer
for Senator Duffy, offered to sit down and discuss Senator Duffys side of the story with
the Crown and the RCMP. Senator Duffy was given no real chance to explain his side of
78. The RCMP instead determined, without speaking to Senator Duffy, that Nigel
Wright had been forthcoming. They believed they could not have obtained emails relating
to PMO dealings with Senator Duffy if it were it not for Nigel Wrights cooperation. But
79. The emails, which were later to form the key evidence regarding Senator Duffy,
were obtained by the RCMP and reviewed by the RCMP months before Senator Duffy was
charged. These are the same emails that Justice Vaillancourt determined revealed the truth
80. The RCMP also credited Nigel Wright with obtaining Senator Duffys detailed
day-to-day calendar of events since his appointment to the Senate. Again, Senator Duffy
was never given an opportunity to cooperate and provide the calendar himself.
81. The RCMP believed that charges against Nigel Wright would weaken the case
against Senator Duffy whom they made the prime focus of the investigation.
23
82. The RCMP further believed that although Mr. Wright was influential and held an
important position, Senator Duffy was a more high-profile target. The investigation into
the Senate of Canada was the primary focus of the RCMP and nothing would or could
dissuade them from that main target, even the clear email evidence which they had in their
possession.
83. On April 15, 2014, the RCMP dropped its nearly year-long investigation into Nigel
Wright on the basis that the evidence gathered did not support criminal charges against
him.
84. On July 17, 2014, Senator Duffy was charged by the RCMP with 31 offences
85. In R. v. Duffy, Justice Charles Vaillancourt concluded that the facts related to the
$90k payment were explicitly outlined in the email traffic that flowed between members of
the PMO, members of the Senate and Senate staff, Senator Duffy, and Janice Payne,
86. These emails were in the possession and fully known by the RCMP many months
87. Justice Vaillancourt concluded that the PMO wielded significant power. He stated
that in an effort to calm the political storm that was Senator Duffys expense issue, the
88. Justice Vaillancourt concluded that the actions of Nigel Wright and the PMO were
Paragraphs:
[1030] Was Nigel Wright actually ordering senior members of the Senate around as
if they were mere pawns on a chessboard?
[1031] Were those same senior members of the Senate meekly acquiescing to Mr.
Wrights orders?
[1032] Were those same senior members of the Senate robotically marching forth
[1033] Did Nigel Wright really direct a Senator to approach a senior member of an
accounting firm that was conducting an independent audit of the Senate with the
intention to either get a peek at the report or part of the report prior to its release to
[1034] Does the reading of these emails give the impression that Senator Duffy was
[1035] The answers to the aforementioned questions are: YES; YES; YES; YES;
shocking.
[1037] The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military
commander proud.
25
the emails can only be described as unacceptable. Putting aside the legalities with
respect to some of the maneuvers undertaken and the intensity of the operations, a
simple question comes to mind. Why is the PMO engaged in all of this activity
when they believed that Senator Duffys living expense claims might very well
89. After extensively and exhaustingly reviewing the evidence and considering the
arguments of counsel, Justice Vaillancourt found that based on all the evidence, Senator
Duffy was forced into accepting Nigel Wrights funds so that the government could rid
itself of an embarrassing political fiasco that just was not going away: they aimed to put an
end to the Chinese water torture of more facts becoming public which the Prime Minister
90. In addition to finding that Senator Duffy resisted against the Forced Scenario,
Justice Vaillancourt also found that Senator Duffy did not receive a true advantage or
benefit. In fact, he found that the opposite was true: the true recipients of any benefit (the
disappearance of political embarrassment) were Nigel Wright, the PMO, the Prime
Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada. By implication, this also benefitted the
Conservative members of the Senate who were conscripted to assist the PMO in pressuring
91. At trial, Crown Counsel suggested that Senator Duffys actions were driven by
deceit, manipulations and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and
marked departure from the standard expected of a person in Senator Duffys position of
26
trust. Justice Vaillancourt stated that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and
others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence, you would have a more accurate
statement.
92. Senator Duffy was acquitted of all counts. No appeal was taken from the judgement
93. On July 25, 2016, well after Judge Vaillancourts factual findings and complete
exoneration of Senator Duffy, the Senate announced that it would be clawing back $17,000
from Senator Duffys salary to recover funds they asserted were inappropriately claimed as
Senate expenses.
94. These expenses were part of the expenses examined by Judge Vaillancourt and
95. On August 24, 2016, the CIBA rejected a request to partially reimburse Senator
Duffy for legal expenses and disbursements incurred in the successful defence of the
criminal charges against him, despite the provisions of the Senates own policy of legal
re-imbursement.
96. On December 12, 2016, Senator Duffy wrote to the Senate and requested
reimbursement of the salary, living allowances and pension accruals that were withheld
98. The media scrutiny regarding expenses concerns began in earnest in December
2012. The media covered the senate committee investigation, the Deloitte investigation,
the payment of the 90K and extensive exposure of the Senate. The media frenzy extended
from there to the very public suspension of Senator Duffy from his position without due
99. Senator Duffy was then subjected to a lengthy criminal investigation and trial. The
100. Senator Duffy and his family have been subjected to intense and unrelenting
101. Even after his acquittal on all charges and return to the Senate, the media scrutiny
102. Senator Duffys reputation is forever tied to the Senate expense investigation, the
controversy over the $90K payment, and the subsequent criminal trial. It has had a
profound effect on his reputation, health and well-being and that of his family.
103. As result of the actions of the Defendants, Senator Duffy suffered significant
emotional, physical, and economic damages as discussed more fully in the damages
section below.
IV. LIABILITY
Malicious Prosecution
104. The Senate is liable for malicious prosecution on the following grounds:
9, 2013;
expense claims;
investigation, hearing, or
2013;
allowances;
criminal trial;
31
(i) The Deloitte report concluded Senator Duffy had not violated any
(iv) The decision to repay $90,000 in valid expense claims was forced
(v) Judge Vaillancourt found that Senator Duffy had not violated any
(ix) In the alternative, if the Senate had the constitutional power, it did
so in the absence of facts that made it necessary for the Senate to use
(x) In the further alternative, if the Senate had the power to suspend
Senator Duffy under the circumstances, the scope of the power used
(xi) The Senate failed to follow the rules of natural justice or fairness in
and punishment of Senator Duffy; Commented [Cu1]: Particularize: you are probably referring to s.
7, but in view of the referral to the RCMP you might consider also
referring to s. 11(d), and 12 as you do below.
servant;
105. The Senate is vacuously liable for the torts of all its members including without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, The Senators affiliated with the governing
Conservative party who used or abused their authority as set out in paragraph 104(q)
above.
107. The Senate is liable for the misfeasance in public office of its Senators as set out in
sub paragraphs 104 (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (l), (n), (o), and (q).
108. These actions were motivated by an improper and unlawful purpose, thus making
109. The members of the Senate affiliated with the governing Conservative party knew
that their actions would harm Senator Duffy and they did.
Unjust Enrichment
Vaillancourt;
trial.
the circumstances;
circumstances;
37
111. As such, the Plaintiff claims damages for unjust enrichment. Commented [Cu2]: I would reorganize this section to show more
clearly a roadmap for the required elements of UE, ie an enrichment, a
corresponding impoverishment, and the absence of any juristic reason
for these, following Dicksons classic statement, and its progeny in the
Unconstitutional Actions jurisprudence., As to the last requirement, the comments above, as to
improper and illegal or ultra vires actions in the administrative law
sense, could be fortified by the collateral attack rule ie the findings in
a criminal proceeding are conclusive in civil proceedings (subject to
claims of abuse of process or fresh evidence which are not applicable
112. Section 31 of the Constitution Act sets out the basis upon which the place of a here): see Toronto v, CUPE Local 79, 2003 3 SCR 77, and generally
Perrell and Morden, The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, p 92.
Senator can become vacant. As none of these pre-conditions existed, the Senate was acting
outside of its authority when it suspended Senator Duffy indefinitely without pay or
privileges.
38
113. The Senate unconstitutionally withheld and failed to reimburse, the Plaintiffs
constitutionally protected Senators remuneration and pension accrual (as well as living
and travel allowance) in violation of the Constitutional Act, 1867 and the Parliament of
Canada Act.
114. As such the Plaintiff claims damages for this constitutional tort. The Plaintiff also
seeks a declaration that the suspension of Senator Duffy together with the suspension of his
salary, suspension of his benefits, claw-back of expenses, his virtual expulsion and ban
115. The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the investigation, prosecution and
punishment of Senator Duffy by the Senate, as described above, lacked procedural fairness
Charter
116. The actions of the Senate as described above deprived the Plaintiff of his rights
117. The actions of the Senate as described in the paragraphs above constitute a
violation of the Plaintiffs right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to
guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter, for which the Plaintiff claims damages as remedy
118. The actions of the Senate as described in the paragraphs above constitute a breach
all guaranteed by section 11 of the Charter, for which the Plaintiff claims damages
119. The treatment of Senator Duffy by the Senate was a violation of his right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to section 12 of the Charter, for which the
120. Each of the allegations outlined above as supporting a specific cause of action also
forms a part of the allegations relied upon by the Plaintiff as supporting each of the other
causes of action.
121. The Senate is vicariously liable for the torts committed by its Senators and is liable
122. Furthermore, and/or in the alternative, the AGC on behalf of the Crown is
vicariously liable for torts committed by her agents including the senate.
Negligent Investigation
123. The AGC, on behalf of the RCMP, is liable for negligent investigation:
2014;
care;
rules; and
Senator Duffy;
investigation blinded by
charges;
accounting/audit evidence,
Obtain (ITOs)
Duffy; and
its Officers.
125. The negligent investigation by the RCMP caused Senator Duffy emotional,
physical, economic and reputational damage as a direct result of the RCMPs negligent
investigation.
Negligence
127. The Plaintiff states that the AGC is negligent, the particulars of which include, but
their duties.
128. The negligence of the AGC caused Senator Duffy emotional, physical, economic
V. DAMAGES
As a result of the joint and/or several actions of the Defendants, Senator Duffy
General Damages
130.
(ii) Depression.
(i) Aggravation to his heart condition including the need for a second
open-heart surgery;
retinopathy; and
(iv) Headaches.
46
and
Defendants actions.
131. Senator Duffys acquittal at trial has not remedied his damages. A significant
stigma still remains. Senator Duffy continues to suffer emotional and physical
damage due to the continued and prolonged reputational damage that continues to
this day, including daily mention, mockery and ridicule in media outlets
nation-wide.
132. Due to the actions of the Defendants, Senator Duffy suffered the following
economic losses:
Aug. 2, 2015;
2016 onward.
133. The Plaintiff, who had been a frequently requested and high-profile speaker at
events, lost all future speaking engagements and the ability to earn income outside of his
Senate salary, which itself was suspended for the period outlined above.
134. The Plaintiff claims the above damages as against the Senate, save for the portion
of pension accrual lost for the period from Aug 2, 2015 to April 22, 2016, which he claims
Special Damages
135. As a result of the actions of the Defendants as described above, Senator Duffy
suffered special damages, including, over three years of legal fees incurred to defend
48
himself from administrative, criminal and penal charges, the particulars of which will be
Punitive Damages
136. The actions of the Defendants, as described above, were malicious, callous and
high-handed and politically motivated. The actions of the Defendants, as described above,
serve to undermine the publics confidence in the Senate, the PMO, the AGC, the RCMP
and the administration of justice. Senator Duffy therefore claims punitive and/or
aggravated damages.
137. The Plaintiff states that the RCMP officers involved in Senator Duffys case were
acting within the authority of their employment, as such the AGC is liable for their actions
pursuant to section 5 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O, 1990, c. P. 27.
c. 43, as amended;
N.1, as amended;
Freedoms.
139. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be heard in the City of Ottawa, Canada.
Lawrence Greenspon
lawrence@greensponbrown.ca
Tina Hill
tina@greensponbrown.ca
Tel: 613-288-2890
Fax: 613-288-2896
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM