On December 7, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal heard the appeal from Justice Russell’s second decision, ruling to strike COMER’s statement of claim.
The Federal Court of Appeal, in its terse and non-responsive reasons, dismissed the appeal.
In dismissing the appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal simply:
1. Re-cited the judicial history of the case, namely:
(a) The initial decision from Prothonotary Aalto striking the claim;
(b) The first decision of Justice Russell (on appeal from Prothonotary Aalto) overturning the striking of the claim;
(c) The first decision of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissing both COMER’s appeal
as to the damages portion of the claim, as well as the government’s cross-appeal on the
main, declaratory aspects of the claim; and
(d) Justice Russell’s second decision on
the amended statement of claim, which
struck the claim.
2. The Court of Appeal then simply endorsed the conclusion of Justice Russell, without analysis, and without response to argument made by COMER, with respect to Justice Russell’s 69-page decision.
COMER is therefore filing an application for leave (permission) to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.
It goes without saying that COMER views the Federal Court of Appeal decision as wrong in law, for many reasons, the same reasons as Justice Russell’s decision which it echoes without analysis nor response to compelling arguments, which is in effect a “passing of the buck” by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Our Comment
As other items in this edition of the COMER journal indicate, support for monetary reform is growing steadily stronger – largely, as a result of what the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) has made clear. It’s exciting that our lawsuit has brought us – at his time – to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada.
