Date: 19980309
Docket: T-165-98
BETWEEN:
BRENDA MARIE JOHNSON-PAQUETTE
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
TEITELBAUM J.:
[1] On February 2, 1998, the plaintiff, Brenda Marie Johnson-Paquette, acting on her own behalf, filed into the Federal Court Registry a statement of claim in which she seeks:
| The Plaintiff therefore seeks: |
| a. employment status of the Plaintiff be held at the current substantive position or higher in a Federal Government Department, in the National Capital Region, which shall not be the Human Resources Development Canada; |
| b. punitive damages for character assassination, permanent physical damage, mental and emotional trauma, physiological trauma of slander, defamation of character, loss of quality family time and retaliation from the managers for complaining of harassment should be in the amount of not less than $650,000.00; |
| c. the legal costs of this Action on a solicitor-client basis; and |
| d. any other further such costs and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and fair. |
[2] On the same day and, I assume, at the same time, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion seeking an Interlocutory Injunction "for the purpose of obtaining an injunction of an order in response to the investigation report of direction from the Canada Student Loans Program, Human Resources Investment Branch, Human Resources Development Canada, as described in their report dated January 12, 1998."
[3] To better understand this request, it is necessary to read the entire interlocutory injunction application.
[4] The plaintiff asked the Court, in a written document, that the injunction application be decided pursuant to Rule 324 of the Federal Court Rules, that is, in writing.
[5] On February 27, 1998, the plaintiff filed three applications for contempt of Court "for the purpose of contempt of Court charge against the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Human Resources Department Canada and the Honourable Anne McLellan, Attorney General of Canada for violation of the notice of motion, interlocutory injunction, filed with the Court Registry, February 2, 1998 at 9:00 a.m."
[6] I do not know why it was necessary to file three contempt of court applications.
[7] The matter came before me for hearing on March 5, 1998.
[8] At the commencement of the hearing, I asked the plaintiff, who was representing herself, what order of the Court the two Ministers named in the contempt proceedings were alleged to have contravened. Her reply was that they failed to follow the terms of the interlocutory injunction. I then informed the plaintiff that there had not, as yet, been a decision regarding her application for injunction because she had asked, on February 2, 1998, that the injunction application be decided pursuant to rule 324.
[9] There not being an order of the Court that the two Ministers of the Crown had allegedly contravened, I explained that there could not be any contempt of Court of a Court order.
[10] The three applications for contempt were and are denied without costs.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 9, 1998. J.F.C.C.