Event and Time
Event Description
A judicial registrar has granted the plaintiff leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim, excluding paragraphs 70-94. The plaintiff appeals this decision to include those paragraphs, alleging misfeasance in public office against two public officers who purportedly interfered with an audit of the plaintiff’s food premises.
Application and Claims
- The plaintiff seeks permission to include new allegations related to misfeasance in public office in its amended statement of claim.
- The allegations focus on the actions of two public officers, Pauline Maloney and Leanne Johnson, who are accused of improperly influencing an auditor's review of the plaintiff's food safety practices.
Judicial Decisions
- The appeal was conducted via a hearing de novo, meaning the court re-evaluates the matter without being bound by the registrar’s decision.
- The judicial registrar had earlier noted that the pleading needed high specificity due to the serious nature of the allegations.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff's Position:
- Claims that both defendants acted maliciously and with improper intent, interfering with food safety audit processes. - Alleges a need for specific details about communication and actions taken by the defendants to support claims of malice and misfeasance.
- Defendants' Position:
- Argue that the plaintiff's allegations are vague and lack sufficient particularity to support claims of misfeasance. - Contend that the assertions do not adequately demonstrate malicious intent or unauthorized actions that would constitute misfeasance.
- Third Parties:
- The auditor, Gavin Buckett, is also involved indirectly through discussions regarding the adequacy of his audit and interactions with the defendants, but he is not a party to the claims.