2 total
The court struck the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend due to bald, unsupported conspiracy allegations.
The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought a claim alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy by US officials, Canadian defendants (Toronto Police Services Board, CSIS, and Government of Canada), and others, involving surveillance, remote physical/mental impacts, and financial suppression.
The Canadian defendants moved to strike the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, arguing it lacked sufficient particulars and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, particularly against the Crown.
The court granted the motion, finding the allegations to be bald, unsupported, and incapable of proof, and that no viable claim could be pleaded even with amendments.
The court declined habeas corpus jurisdiction over a parole suspension, finding the applicant's medical condition did not constitute an exceptional circumstance bypassing the statutory review scheme.
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Correctional Service of Canada's decision to suspend his day parole, alleging procedural unfairness.
The Parole Board of Canada upheld the suspension.
The court dismissed the application, declining jurisdiction based on the "Peiroo exception" which defers to comprehensive statutory review schemes.
The applicant's medical condition was not deemed an exceptional circumstance to bypass this principle.
