Plaintiffs, economic think-tank and its members, brought action against Crown defendants with respect to Parliament’s handling of economic and monetary issues, challenging constitutionality of Bank of Canada Act and alleging conspiracy and misfeasance in public office. Crown’s motion to strike statement of claim was granted. On plaintiffs’ appeal, they were granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim abandoned claims under ss. 7 and 15 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and instead claims breach of s.3 of Charter. Crown’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim in its entirety was granted, without leave to further amend, with motion judge ruling that it did not disclose reasonable cause of action as plaintiffs were asking for advisory opinion via declarations. Plaintiffs appealed. Appeal dismissed. Plaintiffs reiterated their arguments, focusing on issue of standing and right to seek declarations of constitutionality. Right to remedy was conditional on existence of justiciable issue. Even on least deferential standard, no error could be detected in motion judge’s ruling. Plaintiff’s arguments had been fully considered and nothing could usefully be added to further explain why their claims were bound to fail. Considering discretionary element in motion judge’s decision that leave to amend should not be granted second time, no error could be detected in that conclusion.
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. R. (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 6635, 2016 FCA 312, Noël C.J., Near J.A., and Donald J. Rennie J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 3751, 2016 CarswellNat 381, 2016 FC 147, 2016 CF 147, James Russell J. (F.C.).