Martinez v McCaskill et al, 2017 MBCA 6

Citation: Martinez v McCaskill et al, 2017 MBCA 6 Date: 20170111 Docket: AI16-30-08606 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton Madam Justice Janice L. leMaistre BETWEEN : ALEX MARTINEZ ) ) No appearance (Plaintiff) Appellant ) for the Appellant ) - and - ) ) D. A. M.

Pambrun KEITH MCCASKILL AND DEVON ) for the Respondents CLUNIS OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE ) Keith McCaskill and SERVICE, THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ) Devon Clunis of The OF MANITOBA, BELL CANADA, ) Winnipeg Police Service MANITOBA TELECOM SYSTEM, ) and two unnamed VONAGE CANADA, TELUS CANADA, ) Respondents and civilian PRESIDENTS CHOICE FINANCIAL, ) members of The Winnipeg A DIVISION OF CIBC (CANADIAN ) Police Service IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE), ) PRESIDENTS CHOICE BANK, MBNA ) MASTERCARD, TD CANADA TRUST, ) T. B.

Dobson TWO UNNAMED RESPONDENTS AND ) for the Respondents CIVILIAN MEMBERS OF THE ) The Minister of Justice WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE, ) of Manitoba and WINNIPEG CHILD AND FAMILY ) Winnipeg Child and SERVICES, MANITOBA COLLEGE ) Family Services OF SOCIAL WORKERS, MANITOBA ) PUBLIC INSURANCE, HSBC CANADA, ) THE CIVIL SERVICE ) Appeal heard and SUPERANNUATION BOARD ) Decision pronounced: ) January 11, 2017 (Defendants) Respondents ) CHARTIER CJM (for the Court): [ 1 ] The plaintiff sued a number of defendants.

The defendants Keith McCaskill and Devon Clunis of the Winnipeg Police Service, two unnamed respondents and civilian members of the Winnipeg Police Service, the Minister of Justice of Manitoba and Winnipeg Child and Family Services successfully moved to strike the statement of claim on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The motion judge also denied leave to amend the claim. It is from these decisions that the plaintiff now seeks to appeal. [ 2 ] The plaintiff had made a request to attend today’s hearing via teleconference.

He was advised that if he wished to supplement his written argument with an oral submission, he would have to do so in person. The plaintiff chose not to attend and we proceeded in his absence. [ 3 ] We are all of the view that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any error that would permit this Court to intervene. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the motion judge’s decision is so clearly wrong so as to justify appellate intervention. [ 4 ] The plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. Since the defendants to this appeal are not seeking costs, none will be ordered.

CJM JA JA