COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: PAMELLA AMSTER (Plaintiff\Appellant) – and –
JUSTICE DONALD R. CAMERON (Defendant\Respondent)
BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., GOUDGE AND SHARPE JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Pamella Amster, in person
For the appellant
T. Heintzman, Q.C.
C. Wayland
For the respondent
HEARD: May 3, 2000
On appeal from the order of Cunningham J. dated November 2, 1999.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1In our view, this appeal must be dismissed. The matters
pleaded in the statement of claim involve complaints about the
acts of the defendant done in the execution of his judicial
duties when hearing and deciding the appellant’s earlier law suit
against her former common law partner.
2The defendant’s response to the appellant’s complaint to the
Canadian Judicial Council falls into the category of acts done in
the course of his judicial office. The complaint concerned his
conduct of the trial and he was required by virtue of his
judicial office to respond to the Canadian Judicial Council.
3Accordingly, even if true, the allegations in the statement
of claim do not give rise to a valid cause of action in law and
the motions judge correctly determined that the action must be
dismissed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
“R.R. McMurtry C.J.O.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”