The tort of misfeasance in public office

Website Notice: By accessing and using this website, you are assumed to be acting in your private capacity as a member of our Private Membership Association (PMA), operating under natural law and private contracts. This website is exclusively for private individuals engaging in lawful private activities. If you intend to operate in a public capacity, please exit this website immediately. For further details, refer to our Terms and Service Agreement. To declare in writing that you are not acting as a private member of the PMA, please contact management directly. To read our tems of service read them here:
https://prosepma.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=89#p89

We encourage new members to introduce yourself here so that we may get to know you.

Remember to Sign up with a "nom de guerre" (French for "war name"), which is a pseudonym used in a specific context, your specific reasons are your own. It's a way for individuals to conceal their true identity, usually during wartime or in situations where anonymity is necessary. This practice has historical roots, dating back to French army recruits being assigned names related to their hometowns or physical characteristics in the 15th century.

Security and Anonymity:
In times of conflict, in political tensions, as well as jeopardy from government overreach through legislation, regulation and political activism, a nom de guerre allows individuals to operate under a false name, protecting their identity and potentially their lives.

Everyday Life:
Noms de guerre could be used in everyday life as a substitute for one's real family name, offering a layer of anonymity, so one can speak freely and with sincerity with out blowback in their everyday lives.

We all have a right to privacy, in our private lives and in our associations, such as this PMA. The bad faith political activists want to remove our ability to speak frankly and privately so they can terrorize us into compliance out of fear of repercussions. Reclaiming our privacy is a step in the correct direction.

We operate on the Natural Law Principle of 'HARM NO ONE', so vexatious conduct, 'Trolling' or generally abusive conduct will not be tolerated. You will be give 2 warnings then deleted for cause if you persist. We believe in freedom of Speech as long as we share this common platform in a cordial manners conducive to cooperation and collaboration.

For the month of November anf December Membership will be free.

To Become after that, a Contributing Member requires a yearly $20 donation, equivalent to a 1 once Silver Coin, starting in February 2026 then it will be $25 if signing up in March 2026, then $30 in March.... The sooner the better. This entitles you to contribute content, ask questions and collaborate with our other Members across the North or in your specific jurisdiction.

The Forum at this time will be Free for anyone to look, read and learn.

When you sign up please check your SPAM folder for the confirmation email.
Post Reply
User avatar
White Wolf
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2025 1:58 pm

The tort of misfeasance in public office

Post by White Wolf »

The tort of misfeasance in public office

The tort of misfeasance in public office allows a person to sue a holder of government office for misuse of public power. There are two ways this can happen: (1) conduct by a public officer that is specifically intended to injure a person or class of persons, or (2) the public officer acts with knowledge both that she or he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act is likely to injure the plaintiff.

In Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a plaintiff must prove that the public official:

• engaged in deliberate unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions;

• was aware that the conduct was unlawful; and

• was aware that the conduct was likely to injure the plaintiff.

The plaintiff must also prove that the public officer’s actions caused their loss and that the injuries are compensable. Additionally, the plaintiff is required to identify the alleged wrongdoers, although they need not name the individuals as parties to the action.

The unlawful act may arise from a breach of the statute, from the public officer acting in excess of their powers, or for an improper purpose.3 To determine these issues, the court will often have to make inferences about the public officer’s intentions. There is a high bar for inferring knowledge or recklessness of the conduct—the court must be able to conclude that there is no other reasonable inference other than bad faith. The Supreme Court of Canada has described the threshold as “inexplicable and incomprehensible, to the point that it can be regarded as an actual abuse of power.”4

However, the tort of misfeasance is not directed at mere maladministration or negligence, nor is it meant to compensate for incorrect decisions made by a decision-maker where bad faith is absent.5The BC Court of Appeal has, on several occasions, explicitly urged judicial caution and restraint in the application of this tort.6

Source:
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/92551
Post Reply

Return to “Welcome to our Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest