Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue as he had no ownership or official role in the bankrupt corporation that owned the property in question.

• The corporation, still an undischarged bankrupt, could not be substituted as plaintiff without action by its trustee in bankruptcy.

• The claim failed to identify any specific Crown servant responsible for the alleged misconduct, contrary to requirements under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA).

• The statement of claim was deficient in material facts necessary to support any cause of action and was found not remediable by amendment.

• The court found the action likely statute-barred, with the plaintiff having been aware of the loss more than a decade before filing.

• The defendant’s motion to strike was granted, and the action dismissed with costs.

Background of the claim
The plaintiff, Roland Eid, commenced an action in 2024 against the Attorney General of Canada, seeking either $450,000 in damages or the return of two mobile medical clinics that had been installed at the National Defence Medical Centre in Ottawa around 2007. The clinics were constructed by ICI Construction Management, a business name for 6364144 Canada Inc., a federally incorporated company. Mr. Eid, representing himself, alleged that the Department of National Defence had improperly retained or disposed of the clinics and that any proceeds of sale belonged to him and his spouse.

The federal government’s response and motion
The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the statement of claim without leave to amend and to dismiss the action outright. The motion relied on four main arguments: (1) Mr. Eid lacked legal capacity to bring the claim; (2) the corporation that built and owned the clinics was an undischarged bankrupt and therefore had no legal capacity to sue; (3) the claim failed to comply with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) by not naming or sufficiently identifying a responsible Crown servant; and (4) the action was statute-barred due to the long lapse of time since Mr. Eid first became aware the clinics had been moved or disposed of.

Legal capacity and corporate ownership issues
The court found that Mr. Eid had no legal standing to bring the claim. The evidence showed that ICI Construction Management was simply the operating name for the numbered company, and that the company—not Mr. Eid—owned the mobile clinics. Additionally, the numbered company had declared bankruptcy in 2008 and remained an undischarged bankrupt as of 2024. Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, only the trustee in bankruptcy has the right to commence legal proceedings for the benefit of the estate. Mr. Eid had no official capacity in the corporation and could not initiate or maintain a claim on its behalf.

Failure to comply with statutory requirements under the CLPA
The court also found that the statement of claim was defective because it did not identify any specific Crown servant responsible for the alleged wrongdoing. It merely referred to the Department of National Defence as a whole. Under section 10 of the CLPA, a plaintiff must allege a tortious act or omission by a specific servant of the Crown. The claim did not meet this requirement and failed to provide sufficient material facts to allow the Crown to investigate or respond effectively.

Limitation period issues
Although the court ultimately dismissed the claim based on legal capacity and pleading deficiencies, it also considered the statute of limitations issue. The court noted that Mr. Eid and his spouse had begun inquiring about the clinics’ whereabouts as early as 2012, and the claim was not filed until 2024. While self-represented litigants are often given some leeway, the court indicated that even if Mr. Eid had capacity, the action likely would have been dismissed on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Final outcome and costs
Justice Sylvia Corthorn of the Ontario Superior Court struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The court awarded costs to the Attorney General of Canada on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the Crown had acted appropriately and was entitled to recover its litigation expenses unless the parties could agree otherwise.