COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: JOHN DAVID CASTLE (Appellant/plaintiff) – and – ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Respondent/defendant)
BEFORE: JURIANSZ, MacFARLAND and LaFORME JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
John David Castle in person
Malcolm Ruby for the respondent
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: December 1, 2006
On appeal from the Order of Justice James D. Carnworth of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 13, 2006.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1Mr. Castle appeals from the order of the motion judge dismissing his action against the Attorney General United States Department of Justice on the ground of sovereign immunity. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the Attorney General United States Department of Justice is immune from the jurisdiction of the court based on sovereign immunity.
2Generally speaking, the torts alleged by Mr. Castle in his statement of claim all relate to decisions made or actions taken by United States Immigration officials and tribunals relating to Mr. Castle’s immigration status in the United States. He does not allege any physical or bodily injury nor does he claim loss or damage to actual property.
3Section 6 of the State Immunity Act R.S.C. c. S-18 provides that “a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to (a) any… personal or bodily injury or (b) any damage to or loss of property that occurs in Canada.”
4Personal injury referred to in s. 6 first requires physical injury and any claims of mental or emotional distress must be linked to the physical injury: United States of America v. Friedland reported at, 1999 182 D.L.R. (4th) 614 (Ont. C. A.) at para. 39.
5Damage to or loss of property requires physical harm to or loss or destruction of property. It does not include pure economic loss: Friedland, supra at para. 27. In our view, losses such as interference with contractual relations, employment and punitive damages do not amount to personal injury.
6The motion judge was correct in finding that none of the claims by Mr. Castle fall within the personal injury exception in s. 6 of the State Immunity Act.
7Finally, Mr. Castle’s detention took place in the United States, his removal was from the United States, and his alleged damages relate to loss of employment oppor-tunities in the United States. The fact that United States Immigration authorities refused him entry into the United States at Pearson airport does not effect the operation of s. 6. Any harm he may have suffered in Canada derives only incidentally from events that occurred in the United States. Thus, Mr. Castle has not established that pursuant to s. 6 of the State Immunity Act the torts occurred in Canada.
8Once again, we would agree with the motion judge. Mr. Castle’s appeal is therefore dismissed.
9Costs are payable to the respondent in the amount of $2,000 inclusive of disbur-sements and GST.
“R. G. Juriansz J.A.”
“J. MacFarland J.A.”
“H. S. LaForme J.A.”