Law360 Canada ( March 28, 2018, 8:34 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Canada from a decision striking, with leave to amend, statements of claim filed by Whaling and Liang. Their claims sought damages because of the unconstitutionality of the retrospective application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the retrospective application of the Act was a violation of Whaling’s right to be free of double jeopardy. The BC Court of Appeal, in Liang’s case, held that the retrospective loss of the right to early parole effectively increased the penalty for the offence for which he was convicted, violating his right to benefit of the lesser punishment available. Whaling and Liang each commenced a proposed class proceeding. Their statements of claim were substantially the same. On Canada’s motion, the court struck the statements of claim because the facts as pleaded did not disclose recklessness, bad faith or abuse of power such as to ground a claim for relief under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. The court did not rule that the cause of action advanced by Whaling and Liang was not known to law. Canada’s argument that the applicable limitation period had expired was rejected, the court finding that the applicable limitation period was six years because the causes of action arose otherwise than in a province....