CourtFile No. 33043
IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF CANADA (oN APPEALFROM THE COURTOF APPEALFOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and JAMES BLACKLER. alsoknown asJIM BLACKLER
Appellants (Respondents) -and-
MICHIEL McARTHUR
Respondent (Appellant)
FACTUM OF THB APPELLANTS (Pursuantto Rule42 of theSupreme Court of CanadaRuels)
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Departmentof Justice Bankof CanadaBuilding, East Tower 1212- 234Wellington Street Ottawa,Ontario, KlA 0H8 per: ChristopherRupar / Alain Pr6fontaine/ Bernard Letarte Tel: (613)941-2351 Fax:(613) 954-1920 christophef .rupar@j ustice. gc.9a
Counselfor the Appellants, The AttorneyGeneral of Canadaet al. ORIGINALTO: THE REGISTRAR
COPIESTO: JeffreyW. Beedell LangMichener LLP 300- 50 O'ConnorStreet Ottawa,Ontario KlP 6L2 Telephone:(613) 232-7 17 I FAX:(613)231-3lel E-mail: j [email protected]
Agentfor the Respondent,Michiel McArthur I
TABLE OF CONTPNTS
PARTI - STATEMENTOF FACTS...... I A. Overview...... 1 B. Appealsbefore this Court ...... '...."..'..3 C.McArthur...... ,...... ,...... 3 i) Background...... 3 ii) Schemeof theFederal Court Act ...... ,....6 iii) Decisionof theOntario Court of Appeal ...,...... 8
PARTII - TSSUES...,...... ,...... 11
PARTIII - ARGUMENT...... 13 A. ApplicablePrinciples for ChallengingFederal Administrative Decisions...... 13 B. Accountabilityof the Federal Crown ...... '.'.....'.."..14 C. PublicLaw - FundamentalPurpose of JudicialReview is CourtSupervision of StatutoryDecision Makers ...'.'15 D. PrivateLaw - FundamentalPurpose of Tortand Contract Law ...... I7 i) Functionof Tort law andCivil LiabilityLaw is to Compensatefor Breachof PrivateRights ...... ,...17 ii) IntentionalTorts, Negligence and the Anns Test ...... 18 iii) AdministrativeError is Not a Tort...,...... 19 iv) LawfulAdministrative Decision Not a Basisfor Actionin Tort or Civil Liability .....20 v) FundamentalPurpose of ContractLaw - Enforcementof Agreements...... 22 a) GeneralPrinciples ...... 22 b) G-Civil. ....,'..24 E. StatutoryInterpretation of s. lS(l) of theFederal Courts Act ...... 26 i) ApplicablePrinciples of StatutoryInterpretation ...... 27 ii) Applicationof thePrinciples ...... "'..".'30 a) PrimaryPurpose of the FederalCourt - Supervisionof Federal AdministrativeBodies '....'31 b) CrownLiability ...... '...'.34 lt
c) 1992Amendmentsto Federal Court Act andCrown Liability Act ClarifyCourts' ...... 35 d) ConcunentJurisdiction of ProvincialSuperior Courts ...... 36 F. ContextualInterpretation of s, 18(1)of theFederal Courts ActDemonstrates Parliament'sIntent ...... 38 i) OntarioCourt of Appealfailed to TakeInto AccountIntent of Parliament...... 38 ii) ActionsShould Not Be UsedAs CollateralAttacks on FederalAdministrative Decisions ...... 39 iii) CourtMay Haveto Look BeyondPleadings to DetermineApplication of s.18.1 of theFederal Courts Act .,...... 41 iv) LookBeyond Pleadings - Principled Approach ...... 43 G. Applicationof properStatutory Interpretationin McArthur .,...... 46 H. IssuesArising from Decisions of theFederal Court of Appeal...... 48 i) CautionShould Be Used in Conversionof Applicationsto Actions....,...... 48 a)Hinton ...... 48 b) Manuge ...... 50 c)Ang1ehart...... 50 ii) Her Majestyv. Arsenaulr- CourtShould Not Take"Wait andSee" Approach to Determineif JudicialReview Required .....50 iii) Parrish & Heimbecker- Section8 of the CrownLiability and Proceedings Act...... 52 iv) Nu-Pharm- ClearStatement of PrincipledApproach to s. 18( 1 ) of the Federal CourtsAct...... ,.,.,...53 I. Conclusion- Summaryof Principlesto Apply ...... 54
PARTIV - SUBMISSIONON COSTS...... ,...... 56
PARTV - ORDERSOUGHT ...... 56
PARTVI _ TABLEOF AUTHORITIES...... ,...... 57
PARTVII _ LEGISLATION .....,.,..66 I
PART I. FACTS A. Overview l. The rule of law ensuresthat the Crown is legally accountablefor its actions.lIn civil courts,this is done in two ways. First, ensuringthe lawfulnessor validity of public law administrative decisions is the function of administrative law, primarily through judicial review. Second, the federal Crown is held accountable through private law actions in tort and contract.Notwithstanding their common goal of legal accountability of the Crown, Parliament and the courts have long recognized the necessarydifference betweenthese public and private law functions in terms of their purposes,procedures and remediesavailable. The purposeofjudicial review is to remedyerrors in public decision making. This is achieved through summary proceedings that promptly remedy elror, provide finality, and achieve judicial economy. Private law actions allow courts to adjudicate private rights and to compensate those whose private rights have been breached.
2. The purposeof s. l8(1) of the Federal Courts Acf is to ensurethat challengesto the validity and lawfulness of public law basedfederal administrative decisionsare heard by way ofjudicial review in the FederalCourt. In creatingthe FederalCourt, Parliament sought to consolidate supervisory jurisdiction over all federal administrative boards, commissions and tribunals in a federal Superior Court, Parliament also sought to modernize federal administrative and Crown law principles and createconsistency across the country in respectof the supervisionof federal administrative bodies.
3. At the heart of this appealis whether Parliament's intention that the FederalCourt have exclusivejurisdiction overjudicial review can be defeatedby the commencementof an action for damagesthat requires judicial determination that a decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal was invalid or unlawful. In enacting s. l8 of the Federal Courts Act,Parliament intended that any legal complaint requiring the determinationthat
' Refterencere; secessionof Quebec,llggSJ2S.C.R. 217 atpara.70. 2 a decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal was unlawful or invalid can only be judicially reviewed in the Federal Court, This interpretation achieves Parliament's purpose for s. 18. Specifically, it preventscollateral attackson such decisionsthrough actions for damages,ensures that summary proceedings rectiff decision making error whenever possible in a manner that achievesthe greatestpossible judicial economy, and providesfinality in public decisionmaking.
4. Simply pleading damages,or some other remedy that is not availableby way of judicial review in the Federal Court, should not be acceptedas a means to bypass the intention of Parliament that review of federal administrative decisionsmust take place in the Federal Court. However, that is exactly what the Ontario Court of Appeal and the
QuebecCourt of Appeal held in four of the appealsnow before this Court. Ratherthan engagein a contextualand purposivestatutory analysis of s. 18(1) of Ihe Federal Courts Act, the Courtsbelow focusedon the remedypled by the plaintiff as the driving principle to determinethe interpretationand applicationof s. 18(l). Consequently,they ened by reading that provision in a narrow and literal sense, thus depriving it of any real substance.
5. A proper interpretationof s. 1S(l) of the Federal Courts Act that takes into account the intention of Parliament to create a national court to provide uniform supervision of federal administrative boards, commissions and tribunals avoids this narow construction.
6. This appeal should not be viewed from the perspective of jurisdictional competitionbetween courts. The determinationof this appealis basedon the substantive differences between public law and private law principles. It is also based on the determination and application of the intention of Parliamentin the creation of the Federal Court, which it has designed to be the exclusive forum to determine the legality and validity of federaladministrative decisions.
2R.s.c. 1985, c. F-7. B. Appeals Before this Court
7. Based on the factual context of this appeal(McArthur), this memorandumsets out the principlesthat should govern challengesto decisionsof federalboards, commissions or tribunals. Except as required for the development of the common principles in this memorandum, the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal in Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments v. Institut professionnel de la function publique du Canada3 and the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in the casesof Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Her
Majesty the Queenet a\.,4Her Majesty the Queenv. Manuges andParcish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al.6 will be addressedin separatememoranda. The applicationof the principles set out in this memorandumto the decisionof the Ontario Court of Appeal in Fietding TechnologiesInc. v. The Attorney General of CanadaT and TeleZoneInc. v. Attorney General of Canadagis also addressedin separatememoranda.
C. McArthur i) Background
8. The McArthur appealwas one of four appealsargued consecutively in the Ontario
Court of Appeal. The others were TeleZone,G-CiviI Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al.e andFielding. The Court of Appeal has cited all four appealsunder TeleZone.The federalCrown did not seekleave to appealthe decisionin G-Civil.
9. The facts in McArthur are straightforward. Mc{rthur was arrestedin 1994 while on parole. He was brought to Millhaven Institution to await his trial. He was later voluntarily transferred to Kingston Penitentiary and then transferred to the Special Handling Unit at Ste. Anne des Plaines Institution. James Blackler was the warden at
' o [zoos]R.J.e.2oe3. 2oo8r'cR 227 lNu-Pharml. 5 zoogrcA 29 lManugel. u 2008FCA 362 lParrish& Heimbeckerf. t zoosONCR 892 lFieldingl. * zoogoNCR 892 [Telezone]. 'zoo8 oNCA 892 [G-civil]. 4
Millhaven and then subsequentlyat Kingston Penitentiarywhile McArthur was incarceratedin thoseinstitutions. Between January 1995 and February 1999, McArthur wasplaced in administrativesegregation in thoseinstitutions,l0
10. The decisions to place and keep McArthur in administrative segregationwhile in the federal prison systemwere made pursuantto the Corrections and Conditional Releqse
Acttt lCCMl and the Correctionsand ConditionalReleqse Regulations (Regulations).t2 The CCRA and the Regulationsprovide for a schemegoverning the review of decisionsto place an inmate in administrativesegregation. The schemeprovides for periodic review of such decisionsby the SegregationReview Board and other levels of administrationin CorrectionsCanada.l3 McArthur was notified of the internal reviews of the segregation decisionsthat were to take place. McArthur did not file a judicial review with the Federal Court (or any other court) for the purpose of challenging the validity of the decisionsto placehim in administrativesegregation.ra
I l. Contraryto the reasonsof the Ontario Court of Appeal, in his statementof claim McArthur directly challengedthe lawfulness of the decisionsto place him in segregation or to keep him there.rt H. claimed that his administrative segregation amounted to arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment contrary to ss. 9 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.He also sought damagesfor wrongful or false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress.In addition, he alleged that the federal Crown defendantshad failed to comply with the CCM and the Regulations.tuMcArthur further claimed that the segregationdecisions had an ongoing effect on him.l7 to Telezone,note 8, para.82; Affidavit of PatsyHogel, paras. 5-6, AppealBook, pp. I l0-l I l. McArthur wasalso held in provincialinstitutions during this period. tt s.c., 1992,c.zo. t'sov92-620. "Telezone,note 8, para,85, See also ss.20,21(2) and 22 of theRegulations and s. 3I (3) of theCCRA. t4 Affidavitof PatsyHogel, paras.T-9, Appeal Book, pp. I I l-112;Exhibit "C" (copiesof various decisionswith respect to McArthur'sadministrative segregation), Appeal Book, p. 133. 15See Amended Amended Statement of Claim,paras. 15, 23,27 AppealBook, pp. 83,85, See also TeleZone,note 8, para.97. r.uTelezone, note 8, para.83. " AmendedAmended Statement of Claim,paras.24-26, Appeal Book, pp. 85-86. 12. In responseto the claim, the federal Crown defendants(the action also included Ontario as a defendant)brought a motion pursuantto rule 21.01(3)of the OntarioRules of Civil Procedure for determinationof an issuebefore trial.18The questionto be decided was whether McArthur could proceedwith his action in the Ontario Superior Court given that he had not challengedthe decisionsto place him in segregationby way of judicial review in the FederalCourt.le
13. The motionsjudge agreedwith the position of the federalCrown. He held that an action based on a federal administrative decision may proceed in the Ontario Superior Court, but only aftera successfuljudicial review of that decisionin the FederalCourt.20 In his reasons,Justice Pedlar specifically cited portions of the decision of the Federal
Court of Appeal in Her Majesty the Queenv. Grenier,2lwhich discussesthe purposeof s. l8 of the Federal Courts Act as well as the rationalefor the exclusivejurisdiction of the FederalCourt to judicially review federaladministrative decisions.
14. The Grenier case also involved an inmate who was placed in segregationand choseto bring an action in damagesrather than seekjudicial review of that decision.The FederalCourt of Appeal dismissedthe action on the basis that the segregationdecision had not been challenged pursuant to s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act and, therefore, remainedvalid. The Court of Appeal notedthat by placingjudicial review of decisionsof federal administrative agencies in the Federal Court, Parliament sought to avoid the problem of inconsistent supervision of federal agencies caused by a division of jurisdiction betweenthe FederalCourt and provincial SuperiorCourts.22 It also held that it was in the public interest to have finality in administrative decision making in order to ensure effective implementation without delay and to provide security to those who comply with suchdecisions or seekto enforcethem.23 Finally, it concludedthat it was in tt Tel"Zore, note 8, para.84. tn Telezone,note 8, paras.85-86. 'o Teluzone,note8, paras.87-90; Decision of PedlarJ., Appeal Book, pp. 4-9. 2t Her Majestythe Queenv. Grenier,2005 FCA 348, 22 Grenier, note 21, para.26. " Grenier,note 21, paras.27-30. 6 the public interest to preclude the use of tort claims as a way to collaterally attack final administrativedecisions.2a ii) Scheme of the Federal Courts Act
15. Section 1S(1)of Ihe Federal CourtsAct wascentral to the decisionof the motions judge. Through s. l8(l), Parliament determinedthat the Federal Court should have exclusive jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the decisionsmade by any federal board,commission or othertribunal. Section18 reads:
18.(l) Subjectto section28, the 18.(1) Sousr6serve de I'article FederalCourt has exclusive 28,1aCour f6d6ralea originaljurisdiction comp6tenceexclusive, en premidreinstance, pour : (a) to issuean injunction,writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, a) d6cernerune injonction,un wrrt of mandamusor writ of quo bref de certiorari, de mandamus, warrento, or grant declaratory de prohibition ou de quo relief, againstany federal board, weruento, ou pour rendre un commissionor othertribunal: jugement d6claratoirecontre tout and office fdd6ral;
(b) to hear and determineany b) connaitrede toute demandede application or other proceeding rdparationde la nature visde par for relief in the nature of relief I'alinda a), et notammentde toute contemplatedby paragraph(a), procddureengag6e contre le including any proceedingbroughtprocureur gdndral du Canadaafin againstthe Attomey Generalof d'obtenir rdparationde la part Canada,to obtain relief againsta d'un office fed6ral. federalboard, commission or othertribunal.
(2) The FederalCourt has (2) Elle a comp6tenceexclusive, exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction to en premidreinstance, dans le cas hear and determineevery des demandessuivantes visant un application for a writ of habeas membre des Forcescanadiennes corpusad subjiciendum,writ of en posted l'dtranger: bref certiorari, writ of prohibition or d'habeascorpus ad v,nrtof mandamusin relationto subjiciendum,de certiorari, de any member of the Canadian prohibition ou de mandamus. Forcesserving outside Canada.
2a Grenier,note 21, paras.3l-33. 7
(3) The remediesprovided for in (3) Lesrecours pr6vus aux subsections(l) and (2) may be paragraphes(1) ou (2) sont obtained only on an application exerc6spar pr6sentationd'une for judicial review madeunder demandede contrdle iudiciaire. section18.1.
16. Section 18(1) must be read in conjunctionwith s. 2 of Ihe Federal Courts Act, which defines "federal board. commission or other tribunal" broadly. It states:
"federalboard, commission or other < office fdddral> - Conseil,bureau, tribunal" meansany body, personor commissionou autreorganisme, ou personshaving, exercising or personneou groupede personnes, purportingto exercisejurisdiction or ayant,exergant ou censdexercer une powers conferredby or under an Act comp6tenceou despouvoirs pr6vus of Parliamentor by or under an order par une loi f6d6raleou par une made pursuantto a prerogativeof the ordonnanceprise en vertu d'une Crown, other than the Tax Court of prdrogativeroyale, d I'exclusionde la Canadaor any ofitsjudges, any such Cour canadiennede I'imp6t et ses body constitutedor establishedby or juges,d'un organismeconstitud sous le undera law ofa provinceor any such rdgimed'une loi provincialeou d'une personor personsappointed under or personneou d'un groupede personnes in accordancewith a law of a nomm6esaux termesd'une loi provinceor undersection 96 ofthe provincialeou de I'article96 de la Loi ConstitutionAct, I 867. constitutionnellede I 867.
17. The motions judge also noted that actions againstthe federal Crown are dealt with in s. 17 of the Federal CourtsAct.25 The effect of s. 17 of the Federal CourtsAct,readin conjunctionwith s. 2l of the Crown Liability and ProceedingsAct, is that, exceptwhere Parliamenthas specificallyprovided for a court to takejurisdiction over a subjectmatter, the Federal Court has concurrentjurisdiction with the provincial Superior Courts to try an action for damagesagainst the federal Crown.26
2t Telezone,note8, paras.87-90; Decisionof PedlarJ., Appeal Book, pp. 4-9. 2u Federql Courts Act, note 2, s. 17; Crown Liability qnd ProceedingsAct, R.S.C. 1985,c. C-50 as amended,s.21. 8 iii) Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal
18. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in McArthur. In the same decision, it also allowed the appeal in G-Civil and dismissed the appeals of the federal Crown in TeleZoneand Fielding.In doing so, the Ontario Court of Appeal centredits analysis almost exclusively on the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court and the pleadings of the plaintiffs. In particular, the Court of Appeal focused on the fact that the plaintiffs did not expresslyseek a remedy found in s. 18(l) of Ihe Federal Courts Act. The focus of the Court of Appeal is apparentfrom the following passage:
...In my view, so long as the facts pleadedin the statementof claim raisea claim recognizablein the SuperiorCourt, that Court hasjurisdiction to decidethe claim. This would occur in virtually all casesgiven that the Superior Court is a Court of general jurisdiction. That is why extrinsic evidence of facts not pleaded is generallynot receivable.2T
19, The focus on the remedy sought by the plaintiff is also apparent from other statementsmade in the judgment, For example,the Court of Appeal noted that s. l8 of the Federal Courts Act doesnot limit the right to bring an action in Superior Court for tort, contract or breach of the Charter and that the Federal Courts Act doesnot provide for the remedy sought by the plaintiff in any of the casesbefore it.28However, that is not the purposeof s. 18. It is s. 17 of the Federal CourtsAct, inconjunction with s.21 of the Crown Liability qnd ProceedingsAct, that provides for concurrentjurisdiction between the Federal Court and the provincial Superior Courts for actions against the federal Crown.
20. The Court of Appeal acknowledgedthat clear legislative languagecould remove the supervisoryjurisdiction of the SuperiorCourt. It was of the view, however, that s. 18(l) of the Federal Courts Act lacks such clear and unequivocallanguage, primarily becauseit dealswith remediesand not iurisdiction.ze
'' TeleZone,note 8, para. 109. " Tel"Zon", note 8, para. I 10. 2t Telezone,note 8, paras.92,94. 9
2l. The Court of Appeal also provided other rationalesfor its decision.For instance, it was of the view that if a judicial review had to proceedin the Federal Court prior to the commencementof an action in the Ontario Superior Court, there would be "far reaching" implications for Crown liability in that every tort or contract claim against the federal Crown would be subjectto a'odraconian"30 day limitation period.3OAs describedmore fully below, this conclusiondoes not take into accountthe fact that not all proceedings against the federal Crown are subject to judicial review (for example, claims in tort or contract) and therefore to the 30 day limitation period. In addition, the decision does not mention the purpose servedby the limitation period, or the discretion of the FederalCourt to grant an extensionof time for an applicationfor judicial review beyond30 days.
22. Further,the Court below also looked to habeascorpus decisionsof this Court in R. v. Miller3t and May v. Ferndale Institution3' fot rupport of an analogousconclusion that none of the appealsunder considerationby the Ontario Court of Appeal was properly subject to s. 1S(l) of the Federal Courts Act.33 It acknowledgedthat Parliament deliberatelyintended to leave habeas corpus jurisdiction out of s. l8 of the Federal Courts lcl. Notwithstandingthat this expressionof legislativeintent relatesspecifically to the issue of habeascorpus, the Ontario Court of Appeal appearedto be of the view that it supportedthe conclusionthat the provincial SuperiorCourt shouldtake jurisdiction in all matters before it involving the federal Crown (or at least in relation to the four appeals before it) as there is not an adequateand comprehensiveprocedure for the review of such 3a administrativedecisions.
23. The Court of Appeal also took the view that the doctrine of collateral attack was not at play in the appeals.Particular attention was paid to the decision of Justice Morawetz, the motions judge in the TeleZone matter, where he wrote that in these
3^oTelezone, note 8, para.100. " R.v. Miller, 2 S.C.R.613. '^l [985] Ury v. FerndaleInstitution, [2005] 3 S.C.R.809. "" TeleZone,note 8, paras.104-107. 3oTelezone,note 8,para. 106. l0 circumstances" ...a claim shouldonly be struckas a collaterulattack it if seeksto affect a decision'slegal validify."35
24. With specific referenceto McArthur rnparticular, the Court of Appeal found that the statutory schemein the CCM andRegulations was deficient becauseit did not set out the powers of the SegregationReview Board or the relief it could grant. In that sense, according to the Court of Appeal, it was not a "true grievance procedure" because McAnhur could not obtain all of his remediesbefore the Board, the most important being damages.Therefore, since the Superior Court could award damagesand that jurisdiction had not been removed by s. l8 of the Federal Courts Act, the only resort McArthur had was to the Ontario Superior Court.36
ts Telezone,note8, para.98. 'u Telezone, note 8, para. 110, This appearsto contradict the decision of this Court in Vaughanv. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146, where this Court said that a grievanceprocedure is satisfactoryif it provides a "solution to the problem" (atpara.36). ll
innr il - rssuns
25. The generalprinciple developed inthis appealis as follows:If the successof an action for damagesis dependentupon a finding of invalidity or unlawfulnessof a decisionof a federalboard, commission or tribunal,the action must fail unlessthe decisionhas been found to be invalid or unlawful.The determinationof the validity or lawfulnessof suchdecisions cannot be madeby a provincialSuperior Court in the course of an actionfor damages,but mustbe madeby the FederalCourt pursuant to s. 18(1)of theFederal Courts Act.
26. In consideringthis principle, the Court should be guidedby thefollowing factors: D the accountabilityof the federalCrown in law; ii) the distinctpurposes of privateand public law; iii) the principles of statutoryinterpretation and in particular the need for contextualapproach to statutoryinterpretation; and iv) the intention of Parliamentin creatingthe FederalCourt.
27. In applying thesefactors to this appeal,the Ontario Court of Appeal erred: i) by failing to provide a full contextualinterpretation of s. l8(1) of the Federal CourtsAct; ii) by holding that the remedy sought by a plaintiff determinesthe application of s. 18(1)of the FederalCourts Act; iii) by failing to look at the true essenceof the claim to determinewhether success of the claim would depend on finding that a decision of a federal board, commissionor tribunal was invalid or unlawful; iv) by failing to recognizethat wherea decisionof a federalboard, commission or tribunal has not been challengedthrough judicial review in the Federal Court, it remains valid and lawful and continuesto have legal effect; v) by failing to recognizethat a valid decisionof a federalboard, commission or tribunal cannot be tortious: and 12 vi) by determiningthat McArthur could proceedwith his action for damages, eventhough he hadnever directly challenged the segregationdecisions by way of judicialreview in theFederal Court or by seekinghabeascorpus. l3
PART III. ARGUMENT
A. ApplicablePrinciples for ChallengingFederal Administrative Decisions
28. The basic principles governing challenges to decisions of federal boards, commissionsor tribunalsare as follows:
i) Parliamentintended challenges to the validity or lawfulnessof decisionsof federalboards, commissions or tribunalsto be madethrough a judicialreview applicationin theFederal Court.
ii) Where a statutorydiscretion has been laufully and validly exercised,the effectsof the resultingdecision are justified in law and cannotat the same time be foundto be tortiousor negligentor constitutea fault.
iii) Evenif a discretionarydecision of a federalboard, commission or tribunalhas been declaredinvalid or unlawful, that in itself does not createa causeof actionin tort or underthe Quebec regime of civil liability.
iv) If the successof the actionrequires that an underlyingdecision of a federal board,commission or tribunalbe foundto be invalidor deprivedof anylegal effect, the claim cannot proceeduntil the validity or lawfulnessof that decisionhas been determined in the FederalCourt pursuant to s. l8(1) of the FederalCourts Act.
v) Civil claims that collaterallyattack an administrativedecision of a federal board,commission or tribunalin anaction for damagesshould not be allowed.
29. Theseprinciples do not establishan invariablerule that requiresa judicial review application in the Federal Court for all proceedingsthat in any manner involve a decision or conductof a federalboard, commission or tribunal. To the extentthat theseprinciples t4 have been applied beyond the original intention of Parliament, such applications have beenwrong.
30. Understood in their proper context and applied in circumstanceswhere judicial review is appropriateand consistentwith the intent of Parliamentas set out in the Federal Courts Act, theseprinciples have the intended effect of ensuring efficient and effective judicial scrutinyover federaladministrative decisions. These principles also fosterfinality and harmonization of federal administrative law.
B. Accountabilify of the Federal Crown
31. Judicial review of federal administrativedecisions ensures that the government does not overstep its statutory and constitutional authority in dealing with matters of public interest. Private law claims in tort and contract ensurethat, when applicable to the Crown, the Crown abides by and is subject to the principles of law that govern private relationships. As such, the federal Crown's legal obligations are dealt with through different legal procedures.In seeking redress,the inherent distinctions between public and private law obligations,and remedies,must be respected.Innovative pleading should not be permitted to bypass the procedure Parliament has chosen for determining the legality of public law matters involving the federal Crown.
32. Once the intention of Parliament in creating the Federal Court is recognized,the statutoryinterpretation exercise concerning s. 1S(1)of the Federal Courts Act cantake place in the contextual analytical framework that this Court has deemednecessary. Courts should be mindful of Parliament's choice to leave certain decisions in the hands of administrative decision makers and of Parliament's choice as to where and by what procedurechallenges to thosedecisions can be made.Matters that areproperly the subject of judicial review in the Federal Court should not be permitted to proceedas actions simply becausea statementof claim is issued by the aggrieved party and a remedy of damasesis claimed. l5
C. Public Law - FundamentalPurpose of JudicialReview is Court Supervisionof StatutoryDecision Makers
33. Judicialreview is a public law remedy.The term 'Judicial review" captures review of administrativedecisions by way of an applicationfor judicial review and statutoryrights of appeal.37The fundamentalpurpose ofjudicial reviewwas describedin Dunsmuirv. NewBrunswick as follows:
Judicial review is the meansby which the courts supervisethose who exercise statutory powers, to ensure that they do not overstep their legal authority. The function of judicial review is thereforeto ensurethe legality,^thereasonableness and the fairnessof the administrativeprocess and its outcomes.'o
34. The majority in Dunsmuir further noted that judicial review is "intimately connected" with the preservation of the rule of law. It is that constitutional foundation that explains the purposeofjudicial review and guides its function and operation.Perhaps more importantly,the majority in Dunsmuir also stressedthat courts, in exercisingtheir powers of judicial review, must avoid 'o...undue interferencewith the discharge of administrative functions in respect of the matters delegatedto administrative bodies by Parliamentand legislatures."3eConsequently, the standardof review has a centralplace in administrative law.
35. Judicial review also plays an important function in maintaining legislative supremacy.This is achievedin two ways: first, jurisdiction of the decisionmaker should be nanowly circumscribed and defined according to the intent of the legislature in a contextual and purposeful way; and second, legislative supremacy is affirmed by acknowledgingthat the courtsdo not have a monopoly on decidingall questionsof law.a0 As summarizedby the majority in Dunsmuir, the rule of law is maintained because"the
" Dr. Q. v, Collegeof Pltysiciansand Surgeons of British Columbia,t20031 I S.C.R,226, para.21. 38 Dunsmuirv,New Brunswick, t2008] I S,C.R.190, para.28. 3nDunsmuir, note 3 8, para.27 . aoDunsmuir, note 38, para. 30, quoting Cromwell J.A.,"Appellate Review: Policy and Pragmatism",2006 IsaacPitblqdo Lectures, Appellate Courts: Policy, Low andPractice,Y-l atp. Y-12. 16 courtshave the last word on jurisdiction,and legislativesupremacy is assuredbecause determiningthe applicablestandard of reviewis accomplishedby establishinglegislative intent.o'41
36. Ultimately, the object of judicial review is to remedyerrors made in a public law context. This is achievedby remedies,such as quashingthe decision in question and retuming the matter to the decision maker, injunctions to force or restrain conduct, mandamus to compel performance, declaration of rights or duties, quo warranto to challengean individual's right to hold office, and prohibitions.a2To achievethis goal, procedurein judicial review applicationsdiffers from that in actions.Parties proceed by way of affrdavit evidence. There is no oral or documentary discovery and generally no viva voceevidence. Specific timelines are setfor variousstages of the procedure.a3
37. An application for judicial review in the Federal Court is io be heard and determinedwithout delay and in a summary way,oo The focus in judicial review is on moving the applicationalong to the hearingstage as quickly as possible.asThe validity of the decision is reviewed on standardsset by the legislation or through the standardsof review establishedby the common law.a6When appropriate,judicial review provides deferenceto the decision of the statutory decision maker. Costs awards are set by the Tariff in the Federal CourtsRules and are,in most cases,relatively modest.aT
38. The procedures and remedies available in judicial review applications are designedto determinequickly the legality or validity of a governmentdecision and to promote finality and certainty surrounding that decision. Public law in general, and
at Dunsmuir,note 38, para.30 n'See e.g.s. 18(l) of theFederal CourtsAct. a3 Federal Courts Rules,SON2004-283 , s. 2, Rules 300-3 I 8 oo Federal CourtsAct, note2, s 18.4(1) as Dqvid Bull Laboratories(Can.) Inc. v. PharmaciaInc.,ll995l l F.C. 588, p.598, ou See generally the discussionin Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa,2009 SCC 12. a7 Federal Courts Rules,note 43, Rule 407 & Column III of Tariff B. Costs are generally not awarded in immigration matters- Federal Courts Immigration and RefugeeProtection Rzles, SOR/93-22,Ftule22. t7 judicial review in particular, are not intended to redress or enforce private legal rights. Therefore,damages are not availableon judicial review.48
D. Private Law - Fundamental Purpose of Tort and Contract Law i) Function of Tort Law and Civit Liability Law is to Compensate for Breach of Private Rights
39. Tort law is based on a completely different set of principles than is judicial review. In their text entitled CanadianTort Law, JusticeLinden and ProfessorFeldthusen use as a starting point the following definition: "A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, which the law will addressby an award of damages." The primary function of tort law is to shift the burden of loss from one parfy (the plaintiff) to another party (the defendant).aeOf particular significance,there can be no liability for negligence unlesssome compensable damages have been suffered.50
40. Although tort law may have a range of functions, from deterrenceto acting as an 'ofirst ombudsman, and foremost, tort law is a compensator."Sl The law of tort compensatesfor past wrongs. However, it cannot quash the past wrongful act, or its ongoing effects,in order to restorethe plaintiff to his or her position before the alleged wrong occurred. Damages, therefore, are not a surrogate for a public law remedy.
Similarly, in Quebeccivil law, the law of extra-contractualcivil liability, basedon the
a8 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hinton, 2008 FCA 215 at para. 45, referencingAl- Mhamad v. Canada(Canadian Radio-Television and TelecommunicationsCommission), 2003 FCA 45. However,see the discussionbelow concerningthe decisionof the FederalCourt of Appeal tn Hinton, where conversionofan applicationforjudicial review to an actionis discussed. on Allen M. Linden & Bruce Feldthusen,Canadian Tort Law,8d ed. (Markham:Butterworths, 2006) at pp. 1-2. 'o Linden & Feldthusen,note 49, pp. I l0-11 L That said,the authorsadd that tort law is multi-facetedand servesmany purposes(see pp. 1-2). ttlinden & Feldthusen,note 49, p. 4. Seepp. 4-30 for the various functions the authors ascribeto the law of torts. 18 concept of "fault", also aims at compensatingthe victim of a wrongful act by an award of damages.52 ii) Intentional TortsoNegligence and the Anns Test
41. Essentially, there are two broad forms of torts: intentional infliction of harm and negligence.s3As explained below, since the 1950s, the federal Crown has been vicariously liable for the torts of Crown servants. Intentional torts consist of distinct categoriesthat were often definedcenturies ago (e.g. assault,false imprisonment,mental suffering).s4 By contrast,the law of negligenceis more fluid.
42. If an action in negligence is not already covered by an existing and recognized category in Canadian law, the viability of that claim is determined by the application of the Anns test as refined by this Court in Cooper v. Hobart.st The Anns test was confirmed in Cooper as a two stagetest.s6 At the first stagetwo questionsmust be answered:l) was the harm that occurred a reasonablyforeseeable consequence ofthe defendant's act? and (2) arethere reasons,notwithstanding the proximity betweenthe parties establishedin the first part, such that tort liability should not be recognized? The proximity analysis is basedon factors arising from the relationship betweenthe plaintiff and the defendantand includes questionsof policy in the "broad senseof that word". If foreseeabilityand proximity are established,then a prima facie duty of care arises. At the second stageof the test, residual broad policy considerationsoutside of the relationship of the parties are 57 taken into accountin decidingwhether to imposea new duty of care.
tt J.-L. Baudouin& P, Deslauriers,La Responsibilitdcivile,6th ed. (Cowansville:Yvon Blais, 2003) at pp, 871-873. " Linden & Feldthusen,note 49, pp. 33, 107. to Linden& Feldthusen,note 49, pp. 33, 46,50,54. tt Annt v. Merton London Borough Council, [978] A,C.728 (H.L.), adoptedand refinedby this Court in Cooperv. Hobqrt, [2001] 3 S,C.R. 537,2001 SCC 79, Seealso Hollqnd v. Saskatchewqn,200SSCC 42 at para.8. tu Cooprr, note 55, paras.24-39 t' Cooper,note 55, paras.30-3 I 19
43. In Quebec,the generalprinciple is that damageswill be awardedto a person who suffereda wrong causedby the fault of anotherparty.58 In respectof civil liability of the federal Crown in Quebec, in the absenceof a statutory immunity, the application of the general regime will depend on whether the alleged wrongful act was committed within the policy sphere or within the operational sphere of governmental aotion. If the act complained of is an operational act, the generalregime basedon the concept of fault will be applicable. However, when a plaintiff sues the government in respect of an act performed in the policy sphere("actes de puissancepublique"), there is an immunity protecting Crown servantswho act in good faith. Therefore, in this situation, the general regime is not applicableand the liability of the Crown will be engagedonly if the Crown servantwas acting in bad faith.se
44. As discussedbelow, there is no duty of care to ensurethat public law decisions are in accordancewith relevantlegislation and regulations.The consequencesthat flow from a valid and lawful administrative decision cannot be the basis for a causeof action in tort or extra-contractualcivil liability.60 Further,an administrativedecision is valid, lawful and effective and any consequencesthat flow from it are valid and lawful unless and until that decision has been successfullychallenged in the appropriateforum.6l iii) Administrative Error Is Not a Tort
45. This Court in Holland v. Saskatchewanreafftrmed that Canadian law does not recognize an action in negligence for breach of a statutory duty. It was found that "the proper remedy for breach of statutory duty by a public authority, traditionally viewed, is tt Art.1457 c.c,e. 5e Ouimettev. Canqda (Procureurgdndral), [2002] R.J.Q. 1228 (C.A.) at paras.30-37; Brochu v. Canada (Procureurgdndral), 120071R.J.Q.1505 (C.A.); Proulx v. Qudbec,[2001] 3 S.C,R.9 atpara,. 5; Finney v' Bqrreau du Qudbec, [2004] S.C.R. 17; Qudbec (Procureur gdndral) v. Deniso Lebel inc., [1996] R.J.Q.1821(C,A.) at 1836-1839;P. Garant,Droit Administratif,5thed. (Cowansville: Yvon Blais,2004)at pp. 1012-1029;R. Dussault & L. Borgeat, Traitd de droit administratif,2"o ed., vol. III (Quebec:Les Pressesde I'UniversiteLaval, 1989)at pp.959-992;Baudouin & Deslauriers,note 52, pp. 84-89. 60 Holland, note 55, paras.7-8. 6t Etchesv. Canada,2009ONCA 182,para2O.See also Lord Woolf et al.,De Smith'sJudicial Review,6'n ed. (London: Sweet& Maxwell, 2007) atpara. 4-061. 20
62 judicial review for invalidity ... No parallel action lies in tort." As is well established, the mere breach of a statutory duty does not constitute negligence.u'On" of the primary rationales for this principle is that government decision makers should be able to govern or make decisionswithout fear of being held civilly liable in damagesfor errorsmade in uo the good faith exerciseof their powers.
46. This Court also rejected the creation of a new category of negligence to compensatethose who suffer loss because of administrative law etrors, primarily on policy reasonsincluding the spectreof unlimited liability,65This approachis consistent with Parliament'sintention that administrativedecisions be challengedby judicial review rather than through an action for damagesin tort. iv) Lawful Administrative DecisionNot a Basis for Action in Tort or Civil Liabilify
47. The lawful and valid exerciseof statutorydiscretion effectively justifies what, in the absenceof such justification, might otherwise be a tortious act or a fault. The effects of such an administrative decision on the private interest of an individual cannot both be legallyjustified in a judicial review proceedingand the basisof a causeof action in tort or in extra-contractualcivil liability.66Damages cannot be awardedif there is no basis in law to support the action. In Principles of Administrative Law, Jonesand de Villars shared this view:
Offrcial liability in damagesdepends on two necessarypre-conditions: the action complainedof must be tortious and it also must be illegal or ultra vires. Hence,a damagesaction against a public body in tort involves, of necessity,a form of judicial review of the legality of governmental action. Government action that
62 Holland, note 55, para.9. o' The Queen in Right of Canada v. SaskqtchewqnWheat Pool, 119831I S.C.R. 205 6a Justv. BritishColumbia,[198912S.C.R. 1228 aIp,1239;Mackinv. NewBrunswick,[2002] I S.C'R' 405 atpara.78. 65 Holland, note 55, para, 10. 66 Grenier,ncrte2l,para.61; Prenticev. Canada, t2006] 3 F.C.R.135 atpara.32;Tremblqtv.Canada, 1200414F.C.R. 165 atpala. 14; Canadav. Berhad,2005 FCA 267 atpara. 163;Manuge, note 5, para,65. 2l
causesloss or injury must be ultra vires beforeit is actionablein tort; intra vires actionby an officialdoes not generallygive rise to tortiousliability.o'
48. ProfessorsHogg and Monahan reach the sameconclusion in their text on Crown liabilitv. Thevwrite:
It goeswithout sayingthat the Crownis liable to pay damagesonly if the plaintiff can establishfacts that amountto a causeof actionagainst the Crown. A lawful act by the Crown,even if it causesinjury, is not tortious,and therefore gives rise to no liability to pay damages.Even an act that is unauthorizedby law is not necessarilytortious: if the circumstancesdo not comewithin arecognizedhead of tortiousliability, the Crown will be underno liabilityto paydamages.6s
49. A claim in tort that seeks damagesshould be dismissed where the claim is dependent upon finding a decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal to be invalid or unlawful, but where that decision has not been successfullychallenged by way of judicial review. This does not preclude an action for damagesif the alleged tort complainedof doesnot dependon a ruling that a decisionof a federalboard, commission or tribunal was unlawful or invalid and that the decision's legal effect should be disregarded.
50. Typically, such actions would include situations where the liability of the Crown is based on the execution of a function by a Crown servant. For example, the Crown servantmay provide erroneousinformation, be negligent in the performanceof a physical task or activity, or simply fail to notiff the public of a dangerwhen under a duty to do so.
ut D.P. Jones& A.S. de Villars, Principlesof AdministrativeLaw,4s ed. (Toronto: ThomsonCarswell, 2004)atp.6l l. ut P.W. Hogg & P.J.Monahan, Liability of the Crown, 3'ded. (Scarborough:Carswell, 2000) p. 26. See also Dussault& Borgeat,note 58, p. 979. 22 v) Fundamental Purpose of Contract Law - Enforcement of Agreements a) General Principles 5l . Actions in contract are of a different nature than those in tort, or in extra- contractual civil liability. As Professor Fridman notes in The Law of Contract, at its fundamental level a contract is a promise, or a series of promises, between parties. A promise is an undertaking as to the future conduct of a party.6eIn law, a contract is an agreement between two or more persons giving rise to obligations that may be enforceablein court. The parties create a set of legal rules by which they will bind themselves.To
52. Contract and tort also have distinct foundations in law. Rights and liabilities arise in both tort and contract. The distinguishing factor is that in tort, or extra-contractualcivil liability, the rights and liabilities are created by law, whereas in contract the rights and liabilities are formed through an agreement made by the parties as interpreted and enforced by the law.7l Professor Klar has commented on the need to preservethe distinction betweentort and contract,particularly in casesof allegedeconomic loss. He notes that the ordering of commercial relationships and the consequencesthat flow from the conduct of commercial parties is usually reserved for contracl law.72This Court specifically endorsedthat observationin Design ServicesLtd. v. Canada.73
53. A claim for a breach of contract involves a private relationship between two parties. The fact that the Crown is one party does not alter the nature of that relationship. The enforcement of private contract rights depends on the private relationship entered into by the parties to the contract and not on a determination that the federal Crown has failed to act in accordancewith principles of public law.
unG.H.L. Fridman, TheLqw of Contract in Canada,56 ed. (Toronto: Carswell,2006) at p. 3. to Fridman,note 68, p. 5. " Fridman,note 68, pp. l0-1L t' Seegenerally L.N, Klar, Tort Law,3'd ed.(Toronto: ThomsonCarswell, 2003) at p.201 ''Design ServicesLtd. v. Canada, 2008 SCC 22 atpara. 56. z5
54. The majority of this Court in Dunsmulr found that where a public employeewas employed under a contract of employment, the principles of contract law, rather than those of public administrative law, governed that relationship.Ta Therefore, the enforcement of a contract entered into by the federal Crown does not put at risk the integrity of public law principles.
55. Consequently,a finding in public law of the invalidity of an administrative decisionof the Crown is not an essentialelement of a claim of breachof contract.It has been suggestedthat the governmentcontracting authorities' "powers enablethem to make a contractuallywrong decision as well as a contractuallyright decision."75A finding confirming the legality of a contractingdecision would, therefore,be of no assistancein determining whether the contract had been breachedand would not resolve the issue of whether the other party is entitled to compensationfor the breach.
56. Where the essenceor true nature of a claim is a contractual dispute between the federal Crown and another party, it should be resolved by private law contracting principles. However,judicial review also plays a role in contractmatters involving the federal Crown. As set out in Gestion Complexe Cousineau (1989) Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), a party who has statutory procedural rights createdas part of its contractualrelationship with the Crown can choose to pursuethe enforcementof those rights throughjudicial review.76 In casesinvolving allegations of unlawful decisions relating to statutory duties, or illegality, impropriety or bias in a tenderingor procurementprocess, whether or not explicitly pled, and where the aggrievedparty seeksto setaside the decisionof the federalCrown, it shouldstill take the route ofjudicial review as that mechanismis bestplaced to dealwith suchallegations.
74 Dunsmuir,note38, paras.80-82. 75 GlenviewCorporationv. Canada, [19901 F.C.J. No.202. 76 Gestion Complexe Cousineau (l gS9) Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works qnd Government Services),ll995l2F.C. 694 (C.A.), p.703-706;. Seealso Irving Shipbuildingv. Canada(Attorney General),2009FCA I l6 at paras,21-25 (applicationfor leaveto this Court pending,SCC 33208). 24
b) G-Civil
57. In light of the above, the Attorney General acceptsthat the result of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in G-Civil was conect; however,he doesnot acceptthe rationale of the Ontario Court of Appeal in reachingthe correct result.
58. ln G-Civil, the fundamental nature of the dispute was founded in contract rather than a challenge to a discretionary administrative decision. The dispute centred on the "contractA" portion of the tenderingprocess (i.e. the bid submission).
59. The conceptof contract A in the tenderingprocess is well entrenchedin Canadian law and was recently explainedby this Court in Design Servicesthis way:
The Queen in Right of Ontario v. Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern)Ltd., t19S1] 1 S.C.R. 111, first establishedthe "ContractA/Contract B" analysisfor tendering processes. Under this approach, "Contract A" is formed once the proponent submits its bid to the owner. "Contract B" comes into being once the owner awardsthe contractto the successfulbidder.77
60. In allowing the motion to strike of the federal Crown in G-Civil, the motions judge rejected the contract A analysis first set out in Ron Engineering in favour of the decisionof the FederalCourt of Appeal rn Cousineau.TsIn Cousineau,the federalCrown took the position that the decisionof this Court rn Ron Engineeringremoved challenges to government tendering from administrative law and placed such challenges firmly within the realm of the law of contract.TeHowevero the Federal Court of Appeal in Cousineauconcluded that the exerciseby a Minister of a statutory power to seek tenders and to enter into contracts for the leaseof land by the Crown could be subject to judicial
77Design Services, note 72, para.28. '8 Telezone,note 8, paras.62-65. 1eCousineau, note 75, p. 700. 25 reviewunder s. l8(1Xa)of theformerFederal Court Act, as it was a decision of a federal board,commission or tribunal.80
61. In the recent decision of lrving Shipbuilding,the Federal Court of Appeal commentedthat "[p]ublic contractslie at the intersectionof public law and private law."8l Essentially,the Court concludedthat the closer the tie to the exerciseof a statutorypower, the morelikely thatthe decisionwill be amenableto judicial review.It wrote:
124l This view of the Court's jurisdiction is consistentwith that generally adoptedby other courtsin Canada:see Paul Emanuelli,Government Procurement, 2noed. (Markham, Ontario: LEXISNEXIS, 2008) at 697-706,who concludes(at 6e8): As a generalrule, the closerthe connectionbetween a procurement processand the exerciseof a statutorypower, the greaterthe likelihood that the activity can be subjectto judicial review, Conversely,to the extent that the procurementfalls outsidethe scopeof a statutorypower and within the exerciseof government's residualexecutive power, the lesslikely that the procurementwill be subjectto judicialreview.
Englishauthorities on public contractsand judicial revieware considered in Harry Woolf, JeffreyJowell and Andrew Le Sueur,de Smith'sJudicial Review,6th ed. (London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 2007),138-45,where courts generally require an "additionalpublic element"before concluding that the exerciseby a public authority of its contractualpower is subjectto judicial review, even when the poweris statutory.82
62. The circumstancesof G-Civil did not require a finding of invalidity or unlawfulnessof a federaladministrative decision. Therefore, judicial review in the FederalCourt was not requiredand an actionfor damagesfor breachof contractA could
80 lrving Shipbuilding,note 75, para.22,Cousineau note 75, pp.703-706.See also the recentdecision of the QuebecSuperior Court in Les ConstructionB6-Con Inc. v, Attorney Generalof Canada,2009QCCS 3923, which followed the approachadopted by the motions judge n G-Civil. tt In,ing Shipbuitding, note 75, para. l. " Irving Shipbuilding, note 75, para.24. 26 be brought by the plaintiff.s3 The decision of the Federal Court in Peter G. White Management Ltd. also provides an example that demonstratesthat a breach of contract claimdoesnot attracttheapplicationofs. l8(1)of the FederalCourtsAcLInPeterG. Wite Management, it was clear that the action against the Crown was a breach of contract action, without more.84 The Prothonotary in that case, with whom the Federal Court agreed, characteized the plaintiff s case as "in essence,a private matter between the Plaintiff, as lessee,and the Crown, as lessor.o'85
63. The Crown, therefore, acceptsthat in circumstancessuch as in G-Civll, where the private law principles of contract are clearly at play and where damagesare sought that would naturally flow from the alleged breach of contract, an action in damagesfor breach of "contractA" can proceed.
E. StatutoryInterpretation of s. 18(1)of the FederalCourts Act
64. The aboveanalysis describes the variousmeans by which the federalCrown is held accountableby the courts. Next, it is necessaryto look at what supervisoryrole Parliamentintended to be within the exclusivejurisdiction of the FederalCourt, and what wereintended to be areasof concurrent.jurisdictionwith theprovincial Superior Courts.
65. SectionlS(1) of the FederalCourts Act clearlyand explicitlyprovides that the FederalCourt hasexclusive original jurisdiction to issuevarious forms of administrative law relief againstfederal boards, commissions and tribunals. To a significantdegree, the problemswith the approachadopted by the OntarioCourt of Appealin TeleZoneemanate from the Court's failure to properlyapply the principlesof statutoryinterpretation when interpretings. l8 of theFederal Courts Act.
13 Telezone,note 8, paras.53-64, See also M,J.B. EnterprisesLtdv. DefenceConstruction (1951) Ltd. [1999] I S.C.R.619 andMartel Building Ltd. v. Canada,[2000] 2 S.C.R.860, federaltendering cases where the plaintiffs brought actions for damagesfor breach ofcontract. ta Peter G. White ManagementLtd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, !20071F.C.J. No. 931 at para,.5. ttPeter G. I(hite ManagementLtd. v, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (28 March, 2007) (F.C.) at p. 3 (Prothonotary Lafrenidre). 27
66. Ratherthan take a contextualand purposiveapproach to the analysisof s. 18(l) of the Federal Courts Act, Ihe Ontario Court of Appeal adopted a rigid, formalistic and literal interpretation of that provision. The intention of Parliament in creating the Federal Court is an essential element informing the interpretation of s. 18. By ignoring this contextual element, the Ontario Court of Appeal in TeleZone inconectly narrowed the scopeof the application of that provision. That in turn allowed the Court to conclude that actions for damagesthat were dependenton making a determination of invalidity of a federal administrative decision could continue simply becausethe aggrieved parties claimeddamages.
i) ApplicablePrinciples of StatutoryInterpretation
67. As found by this Court in Bell ExpressVu,the modern approachto statutory interpretationdemonstrates the importantrole that contextplays in the interpretationof legislationbecause words "take their colour from their surroundings."s6A full explanationof this approachwas outlinedin Canada Trustco:
It has been long establishedas a matter of statutory interpretation that "the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary senseharmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament": see 65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Canada, [199913 S.C.R. 804, at para.50. The interpretationof a statutoryprovision must be made according to a textual, contextual and purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole. When the words of a provision are precise and unequivocal, the ordinary meaning of the words play a dominant role in the interpretive process. On the other hand, where the words can support more tharl one reasonablemeaning, the ordinary meaning of the words plays a lesser role. The relative effects of ordinary meaning, context and purpose on the interpretive processmay vary, but in all casesthe court must seek to read the provisionsof an Act as a harmoniouswhole.87
'u Bell ExpressVuv. The Queen,12002] 2 S.C.R.559 at paras.26 , 27. Seealso CanadianFoundation for Children, Youth qnd the Lcw v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76 at para, 20. 87 Canada TrustcoMortgage Co. v. Canada,t20051 2 S.C.R.601 at para. 10. 28
68. This Court in Khosa, though dealing with a different sectionof the Federal CourtsAct, has specificallyaffirmed the needto interpretthe Federal CourtsAct in a contextualmanner takins into accountthe schemeof the Act and the intention of Parliament.ss
69. In addition to the ordinary grammaticalapproach to statutoryinterpretation, a purposiveanalysis of a statutoryprovision is basedon the following interpretative propositions:
All legislationis presumedto havea purpose.It is possiblefor courts to discoveror adequatelyconstruct this purposethrough interpretation'
Legislativepu{pose should be takeninto accountin everycase and at every stageof interpretation,including the determinationof a text's meaning.
In so far as the language of a text permits, interpretations that are consistentwith or promote legislative purpose should be adopted, while interpretations that defeat or undermine legislative purpose shouldbe avoided.se
To establishParliament's purpose, equally authenticEnglish and Frenchversions of the legislationmust be consultedto arrive,where possible,at a sharedmeaning.eo
$ Khosa,note 46, para. 38. That case dealt with s.lS.1(4) as opposed to l8(l). tn R. Sullivan,Construction of Statutes,4sed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 2002) at pp. 195-196,219. e0 M, Bastarache,TheLaw of BilingualInterpretation(Toronto: Butterworths,2003) atpp. 15,32-33. 29
o Different enactmentsby Parliament are deemedto make up a coherent system. Interpretations favouring harmony between statutes should prevail over discordantinterpretations.el
70. This Court has rejectedthe purely literal approachto statutory interpretationtaken by the Ontario Court of Appeal.e2As stated by Iacobucci J. in Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Lethbridge Community College, "[t]he modern approach recognizesthat statutory interpretationcannot be founded on the wording of the provision alone. Indeed,the words of the particularprovision must be consideredin light of the legislationas a whole."e3
71. Further, in Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), it was accepted that Parliamentis skillful and careful in choosingthe words of legislationand does so with a specific purpose in mind. Therefore, there is a presumption against tautology in that words found in legislation are not generallyconsidered redundant.ea Moreover, courts must be extremely reluctant to alter the words Parliament has used in legislation, particularly where, as in this appeal,the constitutional validity of the legislation is not at issue.e5
72. Finally, and perhaps most important, is the finding of this Court in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, which dealt with the interplay between courts of inherentjurisdiction and statutory courts. For the majority, Bastarache J. rejectedthe notion that "... statuteswhich purport to grantjurisdiction to anothercourt should be read narrowly so as to protect the jurisdiction of the superior court. That is not
ntP.A. Cote,The Interpretation af Legistationin Cqnadq,2nded. (Cowansville:Yvon Blais, 1992) atpp. 288-292. n'Chieuv. Canadq (Minister of Citizenshipandlmmigration),[2002] I S.C.R. 84,2002 SCC 3 at para.34; ATCO Gas & PipelinesLtd. v. Alberta (Energt & Utilities Board), [2006] I S.C.R. 140,2006 SCC 4 at para.48. e3 Alberta Union of Provincial Employeesv. Lethbridge CommunityCollege, [2004] I S.C.R.727,2004 SCC28 atpara.26. ea Sc hr eiber v. Can ada (Attorney Gener al), 1200213 S.C.R. 269 at para.7 3 . n' Seegenerally R. v. Clay, [200313 S.C.R.735atpara.55, wherethe majority cautionedagainst reading down lesislationabsent a successfulconstitutional challenee. 30 the purposeof the doctrineof inherentjurisdiction, which is simply to ensurethat a right will not be without a superiorcourt forum in whichit canbe recognized."e6
73. It is with these principles in mind that the task of interpreting s. 18(l) of the Federal Courts,4cf should be undertaken. ii) Application of the Principles
74. The approachto the interpretationof s. lS(1) of the Federal Courts Act adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal ignores the intention of Parliament in creating the Federal Courtandthewordingof s. 18(l)ofthe FederalCourtsAct.Italsoallowsplaintiffsto frustrate the intention of Parliament through innovative pleading. The Court's role is to determine the essenceof the claim, in order to ensure that the claim is not used as a means to avoid judicial review as intended by Parliament. The result of this approach would be to allow provincial Superior Courts to determinethe validity or lawfulness of an administrativedecision of a federalboard, commission or tribunal and disregardits legal effect, through an action for damages.
75 . The wording of s. I S(1) of the Federal Courts Act specifrcallyand unequivocally provides the FederalCourt with exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction to issue remedieswhich have the effect of reversing the decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, declaring it to be invalid, and disregardingits legal effect. When interpreting the scopeof this provision, a contextual interpretation of s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act demonstratesthat the intention of Parliamenl was to transfer supervision of federal administrative boards,commissions and tribunals to the Federal Court. This is made clear by referenceto the debatesin Parliament,a review of the history of the Federal Court and the evolution of Crown liability, and a review of the state of federal administrative law before the creation of the FederalCourt. Any interpretationof s. l8(1) of the Federal Courts Act must be made with this context in mind. e6 Cunada (Human RightsCommission) v. CqnqdianLiberty Nel, [1998] I S.C.R.626 atp.656, referringto Boardv. Boqrd,[919] A,C. 956. 3l
76. A review of the history of the FederalCourt and the evolution of Crown liability makes it clear that the intention of Parliament was not to create a court that was duplicative of the jurisdiction of the provincial Superior Courts. The primary intention of Parliament was to place the supervision and review of federal boards, commissions and tribunals under the jurisdiction of the FederalCourt to allow for uniformity of supervision of federal boards across the country. In contrast, properly founded actions against the Crown, that are not based on demonstratingthe invalidity or unlawfulness of a federal administrativedecision, can be brought in either the Federal Court or the provincial SuperiorCourts.
17. What is noticeably absent from the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal is a full contextual statutory analysis of the Federal Courts Act. It is only upon conducting such an analysis that the intention of Parliament in creating the Federal Court and in passing the Federal Courts Act (and its predecessor)that the role of the Federal Court, and of provincial Superior Courts, can be fully and properly determined a) Primary Purpose of the Federal Court - Supervision of Federal Administrative Bodies
78. This Court recognizedin Khosa that the underlying rationale for the creation of the Federal Court was to remove the jurisdiction over prerogative writs, declarations and injunctions against federal boards, commissions and other tribunals from provincial Superior Courts.eTThe objective was to createa federal Superior Court.e8 This Court has recognizedon severaloccasions the transferofthis supervisoryjurisdictionto the Federal Court.eeSpecifically, in Canada (Labour RelationsBoard) v. Paul L'Anglais Inc.t}} this n' Khosa,note46, para.34. nt Khoto, note 46, para.34, quoting the then Deputy Minister of Justicebefore the Commons Standing Committee on Justiceand Legal Affairs: Standing Committeeon Justice and Legal Affuirs, Minutes of Proceedingsand Evidence,28ft Leg. 2ndsess., No. 26 (7 May 1970) at26:25. nn Khosq, note 46, para.34,referencingPringlev. Freser,tl972l S.C.R.821; Commonwealthof Puerto Ricov. Hernandez,[1975] I S.C.R.228;Howqrthv. NationalParole Board,11976l I S.C.R.453 atpp' 470-472;andMartineauv.MatsquilnstitutionDisciplinaryBoard, [1980] 1 S.C.R.602atp.637. )z
Court confirmedthat the effect of the original Federal Court Act was to transferall superintendingand reformingpower over federalagencies from the SuperiorCourts to theFederal Court.lor
79. This purpose is clearly supported by reference to the debates in Hansard surrounding the creation of the Federal Court. In commenting on the proposed Federal Court Act, the Minister of Justicemade it clear that there was to be a clean break from the former Exchequer Court and its limited jurisdiction.tot A, the Minister of Justice explained to Parliamento'Federal Boards should be dealt with on a federal basis."lo3 oo...single Consequently,the FederalCourt was designedto createa and uniform basisof superintendingjurisdiction in relation to federal boards and commissionsand to place them on the samefooting in this regardas provincial boardsand commissions."lOaThis statementreflected the fact that prior to the creation of the Federal Court, federal boards and commissionswere subjectto review by variousprovincial SuperiorCourts, which led to inconsistentjurisprudence concerning supervision of thosebodies and subjectedthem to variouspractices and jurisdiction in the different SuperiorCourts.l05
80. In creatingthe FederalCourt, Parliament took the opportunityto modernizefederal administrativelaw. This was requiredbecause the decisionof this Courtin ThreeRivers
too Canada (Labour RelationsBoard) v. Paul L'Anglais Inc., ll983l1 S.C.R. 147. tot Paul L'AnglaisInc.,noIe99,p. 154. to' House of CommonsDebates, vol. V (25 March 1970)at 5469-70(Hon. JohnN. Turner). to3 Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. I (29 October 1970)aI707 (Hon. JohnN. Turner). too Hous, of CommonsDebates, vol. V (25 March 1970)at 5470-71(Hon.John N. Tumer). Seethe Statementsof Deputy Minister of Justice Maxwell before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs,28'hLeg. 2ndsess., No. 26 (7 May 1970) at26:25 for additionaldetail on the problemsof multiple supervisingcourts over federaltribunals. t05 Houseof CommonsDebates, vol, V (25 March 1970)at 5470;House of CommonsDebates, vol, I (29 October 1970)at 707 (Hon. JohnN. Turner). The purposeofthe FederalCourt was againreflected on by the Minister of Justicewhen he rose in Parliament in I 989 to introduce amendmentsto the Federal Court Act. SeeHouse of CommonsDebates, vol. IV (1 November 1989)at 5413-14(Hon. Doug Lewis); Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. I (29 October 1970)at 707 (Hon. JohnN. Turner), Seealso I. Bushnell,Z&e Federql Court of Canada, A History, I 875- I 992 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997) at pp. I 59- 160; D.J,M. Brown & J.M. Evans,Judiciql Reviewof AdministrativeAction in Canada,loose-leaf (Toronto: CanvasbackPublishing, 1998) at para.2:410A;and D. Lemieux,Le controlejudiciaire de l'qction gouvernementale(Montreal: Centre d'Edition Juridique,l98l) atp.24. JJ
Boqtmen Ltd. v. Conseil Canadien des Relations Ouvridres et al.l06 effectively froze the superintending jurisdiction of provincial Superior Courts over federal boards and commissions in pre-confederationlegislation. Improvements over the superintending jurisdiction of provincial SuperiorCourts by the provincial legislatureswere unattainable. As a result, Parliament saw fit to ensure that the Federal Court structure would have modem tools of supervisionand structurewith definedprocedures to review decisionsof federalbodies.loT
81. The jurisdiction of the proposedFederal Court went beyond simply transferring federal supervisoryjurisdiction from the provincial Superior Courts. The legislation creating the Court added jurisdiction and responsibilities that its predecessor,the ExchequerCourt, did not possess.losAs statedby this Court in Canada (Human Rights Commission)v. Canadian Liberty Net, the Federal Court, and more precisely the Federal Court of Appeal, stood at the apex of all administrative decision makers who gathered their power from individual Acts of Parliament.toeThe need for a single court to supervise the growing myriad of administrative decision makers was addressedby the FederalCourt's expandedjurisdiction over that of its predecessor.The "newooCourt was grantedjurisdiction over specificallyenumerated subject matters, as well as jurisdiction in a more generalfashion by virtue of ss. 3, 18 and subsequently18.1 of the Federal CourtAct.tto
82. Notwithstanding the additional jurisdiction granted to the Federal Court over its predecessor,the creation of that Court was not an attempt to make a jurisdiction grab from the provincial SuperiorCourts.lll
Io6 Three RiversBoatmen Ltd. v. ConseilCanadien des Relations Ouvridres et al., |9691S.C.R. 607. Io7 House of CommonsDebates, vol. V (25 March 1970)at 5471(Hon. JohnN. Turner);Bushnell, note 104,at pp. 16l-162 108 CanadiqnLiberty Net, nole95, p. 653, 657; Bushnell,note 104, pp. 162-163 10e Canqdian Liberty Net, note 95, p. 657 110 Canadian Liberty Net, note 95, p. 657 t" House of CommonsDebates, vol. I (29 October 1970) at706-107(Hon. JohnN, Turner) 34 b) Crown Liability
83. An additionalfactor to take into accountin determiningthe scopeof s. l8(1) of the Federal Courts Act is the liability of the federal Crown. At common law, the Crown could not be sued,The rationale was that since the Crown had createdthe courts it could not appear before them. Moreover, the Crown was essentially immune from actions in tort. Although individual Crown servants could be sued, the Crown could not be held liable in tort either directly or vicariously in respect of actions of Crown servants or agents.lt2 The Crown, however, was not above the law and had a moral duty to offer redressfor legitimateclaims by citizens.l13
84. The Crown Liability Act, broughtinto force in the early 1950s,provided for federal Crown tort liability under two heads: vicarious liability for torts committed by Crown servantsin the course of their employment and direct liability for torts attaching to the ownership, possession or control of Crown properfy.rra That liability effectively continued through to ss. 3(a) and 3(b) of the cuffent Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.tts The Crown Liabitity Act also permitted, for the first time, actions againstthe Crown in provincial Superior Courts for vicarious liability for negligence where the amountsclaimed were under $1,000.It also introducedprocedures for such actionsand rules concerning costs, limitation periods, interest and payment of judgments. This schemeremained relatively intact until amendmentsmade in 1992. One of the goals of the legislation creating the Federal Court was to have procedure concerning Crown liability modernizedand placed, primarily, with that Court. ttz Conseildes ports nqtioneauxv. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R.60 atpp.71-72 ttt House of CommonsDebates,vol.IV (28 May 1951)at 3479-3480(Hon. StuartS. Garson) tto Crorn LiqbilityAct, S.C. 1952-53,c, 30, ss.3(1)(a), (b). I l5 Not. 26. Section3 provides: The Crown is liable for the damagesfor which, if it were a person, it would be liable (a) in the Provinceof Quebec,in respectof (i) the damagecaused by the fault of a servant of the Crown, or (ii) the damageresulting from the act of a thing in the custody of or owned by the Crown or by the fault of the Crown as custodianor ownert and (b) in any other province, in respectof (i) a tort committed by a servantof the Crown, or (ii) a breach ofduty attachingto the ownership, occupation,possession or control ofproperty 35
c) 1992 Amendments to Federal Court Act and Crown Liability Act Clarify Courts' Jurisdiction
85. The original division betweenss. 18 and 28 of the Federal Court Act createda series of unproductivedebates conaerning the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Trial Division as opposedto the Federal Court of Appeal, over supervisoryjurisdiction of federal boards,commissions and tribunals.ltuAlso problematicat a constitutionallevel was the exclusivejurisdiction of the FederalCourt, Trial Division over claims againstthe federal Crown. The decisions of this Court in QuebecNorth Shore Paper,117McNamara Constructionttsand ThomasFuller Constructionttemade it clear that the federalCrown could not bring an action in the Federal Court against her subjects. Consequently, counterclaims,third party claims and cross-claimsof the Crown had to be brought by an originating action in the provincial Superior Courts, which led to bifurcated and duplicativeproceedings, r20
86. The modificationsmade in 1992to the Federal Court lcl soughtto addressthese concerns.When he introducedthe amendinglegislation to the House of Commons,the Minister of Justice spoke about the reasonsfor the changes.First, it was recognizedthat actions against the Crown should be available both in the Federal Court and in the provincial Superior Courts.l2rPreserving the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear such claims maintained the ability of a plaintiff to bring an action in tort or contract when it was advantageousto have the matter tried by a Court with national jurisdiction. To provide concurrentjurisdiction to the provincial SuperiorCourts, amendments were made
l'u Brown & Evans,note 104,pp.2-39,2-40. tt7 QuebecNorth ShorePaper v. C.P. Ltd.,I1977l2 S.C.R.1054. ttq McNqmara Construction(Western) Ltd. v. The Queen,[1977J 2 S.C.R.654. rre R. v. ThomasFuller ConstructionCo. (1958)Ltd., [980] I S.C.R.695. t20 Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committeeon Bill C-38,34th Leg.2"d sess.,No. I (23 November1989) at l:15. ttt Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. IV (l November 1989)at 5414-15(Hon. Doug Lewis). The amendmentsalso sought to placejurisdiction for compensationunder a number of agricultural statueswith the provincial SuperiorCourts. 36 to the Crown Liability Act (renarrredthe Crown Liability and ProceedingsAct) andto the Federal Court Act.122
87. Moreover, the unproductive debate concerningthe jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal was dealt with by placing general supervisoryjurisdiction of federalbodies with the FederalCourt, Trial Division. The only exception would be specifically listed tribunals who would be superviseddirectly by the Federal Court of Appeal. The rationale for allowing review of some federal tribunals in the Court of Appeal was that those tribunals were either composed of judges or were constitutedin legislation as courts of record. The amendmentsalso set out the relief or remedies available from the court, the grounds that had to be establishedin order to be grantedthat relief and the procedurethat should be followed in seekingthe relief.l23 d) Concurrent Jurisdiction of Provincial Superior Courts
88. The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in TeleZonegives unnecessary primacy to the inherent generaljurisdiction of the provincial Superior Court. It is without questionthat provincial SuperiorCourts are courts of inherentjurisdiction. This unique jurisdiction is founded in the history of those courts and their traditional exerciseof generaljurisdiction over all matterscivil and criminal in nature. This generaljurisdiction precedesConfederation and is rooted in the ancestryof thosecourts in the English Royal Courtsof Justice,l2a
89. The creationof the FederalCourt and the subsequenttransfer of supervisory jurisdiction over federal boards,commissions and tribunals did not remove from
122 Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committeeon Bitl C-38, 34d'Leg. 2ndsess., No. I (23November I989) at I :15, t23 Minutes of Proceedingsand Evidenceof the LegislativeCommittee on Bill C-38, 34thLeg. 2nosess,, No. I (23 November1989) at l:16; Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. IV (l November1989) at 5414-15(Hon. Doug Lewis). Other aspectsof the legislation dealt with requirementsfor Notice of Constitutional Questions to Attorneys General, the processfor seeking leave to appeal to this Court and the creation of a FederafCourt Rules Committee. See also Debates of the Senate,No. 55 (20 February 1990) at 1237-38. t2a Canadian Liberty Net, note 95, pp. 65'l-652; Attorney Generql of Canada v. Lmu Society of British Columbia, ll982l 2 S,C.R.307 at pp. 326-327. 37 provincial SuperiorCourts their jurisdiction to determinethe constitutionalvalidity and applicabilityof federallegislation.l25 Nor did it removefrom thosecourts the ability to try actionsagainst the Crown.Both s. 21 of the CrownLiability and ProceedingsAct ands. 17 of theFederal Courts Actmake this clear.Indeed, s. 17(6)of the FederalCourts Act removesjurisdiction from the FederalCourt if Parliamentexpressly confers jurisdiction on anothercourt. The assignmentby Parliamentof specific review jurisdiction over federal administrativedecisions to the FederalCourt is not a tltreat to the general jurisdictionof the provincialSuperior Courts. The inherentjurisdiction of the Superior Courtsshould not be usedas a meansto negatethe intentionof Parliamentconcerning judicialreview of federaladministrative decisions.
90. A key proposal in the amendments to the Federal Court Act in 1992 was explicitly to allow for concurrentjurisdiction in actions against the Crown.l26As the Minister explainedin Committeehearings, the purposewas to give litigants a choice of courts while at the same time recognizing that some contract or tort matters would be more effectively and effrciently tried in the Federal Court.t27This targeted amendment sits in contrast to an earlier proposal, rejected by Parliament,that would have in essence includedevery provincial SuperiorCourt aspart of the FederalCourt.l28
91. The plain reality of concurrentjurisdiction of the FederalCourt with provincial Superior Courts was acknowledgedby the Federal Court of Appeal in Her Majesty the
Queen v. Manuge. There, in an obiter statement commenting on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in this matter, Justice L6tourneaunoted that provincial Superior Courts have the jurisdiction to hear actionsin damagesinstituted by aggrievedparties.l2e However, concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate claims in damages against the federal
t2sKhosa, note 46, para.34, referencing I ttorneyGeneral of Canadav. Law Societyof British Columbia, note125. t'uHouse of CommonsDebates, vol. IV (l November1989) at 5415(Hon Doug, Lewis). t27MinutesofProceedingsandEvidenceoftheLegislativeCommitteeonBillC-38,34^Leg.2"o sess.,No. I (23November 1989) at l:15. "t Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. I (29October 1970) at702-707,711,721. rznManuge, note 5, para.84. 38
Crown with provincial Superior Courts does not diminish the effect of s. l8 of the Federal Courts Act.
F) Contextual Interpretation of s. 18(1) of the Federal CourtsAct Demonstrates Parliament's Intent i) Ontario Court of Appeal Failed to Take Into Account Intent of Parliament
92. The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in TeleZonedid not take into account the full contextual basis upon which s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts lcl should be interpreted.The Court failed to ascertainthe importance of the object and the purpose of s. 18(l) of the Federal Courts Act. Instead,it focused on the remedy sought by the plaintiff. By taking a restrictiveand narrow view of s. 18(1),the Court of Appeal ignored the intention of Parliament to provide the Federal Court with exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of federaladministrative boards, commissions and tribunals.The judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal, in effect, allows provincial Superior Courts to rule directly on the legality or validity of decisionsof federal boards, commissionsand tribunals through actions for damagesand to issue a remedy which disregardsthe legal effect of thesedecisions.
93. Even if a literal interpretationof s. l8(1) were to be adopted,the Ontario Court of Appeal erred. The Court failed to give any meaning to the term "exclusive original jurisdiction" of the FederalCourt found in s. 18(1).This is reinforcedby s. l8(1Xb) of the Federal Courts Act, which provides the Federal Court with exclusive jurisdiction to determine"proceedings" for relief "in the nature of' that found in s. 18(l)(a). Where relief soughtin an action requiresthe court to determinethe lawfulnessor validity of a decisionof a federalboard, commissionor tribunal, andto disregardits legal effect, the action is improper. 39 ii) Actions Should Not Be Used as Collateral Attacks on Federal Administrative Decisions
94. The narrow interpretationaccorded to s. 1S(l) of the Federal Courts Actby lhe Ontario Court of Appeal in TeleZoneled the Court to fail to undertake any meaningful analysis of whether the plaintiffs were really engaging in a collateral attack of a federal administrativedecision. Such collateralattacks, even when accompaniedby a claim for damages,are not consistentwith the schemeof the Federal Caurts Act and the intention of Parliament.
95. As this Court statedin Garland v. Consumers'Ges Co., the doctrineof collateral attack prevents a party from undermining previous orders issued by a Court or administrativetribunal and is generally invoked "...where the party is attempting to challengethe validity of a binding order in the wrong forum, in the sensethat the validity of the order comes into question in separateproceedings when that party has not usedthe direct attackprocedures that were opento it (i.e., appealor judicial review)."I30
96. The basisof the rule againstcollateral attacks was statedby this Court in l?. v. Litchfield:
Therationale behind the rule is powerful: the rule seeksto maintainthe rule of law and to preservethe reputeof the administrationof justice. To allow partiesto govemtheir affairsaccording to their perceptionof matterssuch as the jurisdiction of the courtissuing the orderwould resultin uncertainty.Further, "the orderlyand functionaladministration of justice" requiresthat court ordersbe consideredfinal andbinding unless they are reversed on appeal(R. v. Pastro,sllprn, atp' 497).t3r
97. The concernwith allowing collateralattacks is not confinedto court orders.In Maybrun,this Court examinedwhether the validity of an administrativeorder requiring certainmeasures to be takento protectthe environmentcould be collaterallyattacked in a
130 Garland v. Consumers'Gas Co., [2004] I S.C.R.629 at para.7 | . ''' R, u. Litchfield,ll99314 S.C.R.333 at p 349,para17. 40 criminal proceeding notwithstanding the availability of review proceedingspursuant to theEnvironmental Protection Act.r32
98. This Court reviewed the intent of Parliament and concluded "...that persons charged with failing to comply with an order issued under the Act cannot attack the validity of the order by way of defence after failing to avail themselves of the appeal mechanismsavailable under the Act, The trial judge accordinglylacked the jurisdiction to 133 rule on the validity of the order."
99. The need to prevent such collateral attacksis one of the primary rationalesfor the Grenier decision.l3aIt is also reflectedin the decisionof the FederalCourt of Appeal in Berhad, where it was noted that it is also in the public interest to ensure finality of administrative decisions. Therefore, a party that wants to challenge a federal administrativedecision ought to do so by exhaustingits statutoryremedies.l3s
100. Since Parliament has clearly determined the process and court by which challengesto the validity of administrativedecisions of a federalboard, commissionor tribunal are to be made, courts should be vigilant to guard against collateral attacks on such decisions by way of actions for damages.An award of damagescannot be made wherethe underlyingadministrative decision is lawful or valid. A lawful or valid decision cannot createliability in tort or constitute fault under the regime of civil extra-contractual liability in Quebec.
101. Simply pleading relief that is availableonly in an action should not be the basis for allowing collateralattacks on decisionsof federalboards, commissions or tribunals.If pleadings are the controlling principle then judicial review of federal administrative decisionswill be rare. Factsgiving rise to a dispute,not the legal characterizationof the
tt' R. v. ConsolidatedMayburn Mines Ltd., [998] I S.C.R.706. Mayburn Mines,note 133, para.65. t3a"t Grenier,note 21, paras.3l-33, t35 Berhad,note 65, paras.59-65, 158. 4l dispute through artful pleading, should guide the analysis of the court.l36 What a court must do is look at the essentialnature of the claim and the legal framework in which the claim is made to determine if it requiresthe court to make a finding that an administrative decisionof the federalCrown is invalid, or to disregardits legal effect.
iii) Courts May Have to Look Beyond Pleadingsto Determine Application of s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act
102. It is necessaryto determine the true essenceof a claim in order to determine whether a judicial review applicationis requiredprior to proceedingwith an action. A significant problem with the approachtaken by the Ontario Court of Appeal rn TeleZone is the unwavering focus on the relief sought by the plaintiff as the guiding basis for not interpretingand applying s. l8(1) of the Federal Courts Act in accordwith Parliament's intention. As noted below, the Federal Court of Appeal in Anglehart alsoappears to have taken this narrow view.
103, The court shouldalways look beyondthe pleadingsto determinewhether or not at its root, the plaintiff s claim requires the court to make a determination concerning the validity or lawfulness of a federal administrative decision. Otherwise the pleading "taken on its face" could be used to circumvent the intention of Parliamentthat the legality of an administrativedecision of the federal Crown be judicially reviewed exclusively in the FederalCourt.
104. In Canada (House of Commons)v. Vaid, this Court held that in order to determine the true substanceof the claim, one must "look not to the legal characterizationof the wrong (e.g. negligence)but to the facts giving rise to the dispute."l37A more probing inquiry by a court to determine the true essenceof the claim would not be burdensome. Most of the time, a preliminary motion early in proceedingscould deal with the issue of whether the claim is dependenton an issue that should be determinedby judicial review
"u Weberv. OntarioHydro, ll995l2 S.C.R.929 atpara.49. 42 in the Federal Court. This preliminary proceeding could take the place of summary judgment,a determinationof a legal issueor a motion to strike a claim. Dependingon the applicablerules of procedure,evidence in such motions may be permittedin addition to the pleadings. However, even in a motion to strike the pleadings, where additional evidence is usually not permitted, a court should take a "hard look" at the pleadings to ensurethat the action is not a collateral attack on a federal administrative decision.
105. This Court has said that before a pleadingcan be struck on a preliminarymotion, it has to be "plain and obvious" that the claim disclosesno reasonablecause of action.l3s A claim in tort basedon an impugned administrativedecision disclosesno reasonable cause of action unless and until the decision has been found to be invalid or unlawful througha judicial review applicationin the FederalCourt.l3e
106. The "plain and obvious testo'does not determinewhether a court hasjurisdiction to adjudicate on a proceeding. It is used to determine if the pleadings disclose a reasonableclaim, However, the applicationof the "plain and obvious" test can co-exist with the determination of when an administrative decision must be reviewed through judicial review in the Federal Court. Although a court may have to look beyond the bare assertionsfound in a claim, a more probing test of the validify of the claim does not offend the "plain and obvious" principle.la0 As noted by the FederalCourt of Appeal in Canada v. Roitman, a statementof claim should not be read blindly and always taken at face value. A court should look beyond the words used, the facts alleged and remedy sought, to ensure that the claim is not an attempt to reach an otherwise unattainable result.lal
107. By engagingin this more probing,yet preliminary,examination of the claims of a plaintiff, a court can ensurethat Parliament'sintention in s. 18 of the Federal CourtsAct,
t" Canada (Houseof Commons)v. Vqid, [2005] 1 S.C.R.667 at para.93. 138 Hunt v, Carey Can. Inc., t199012 S,C,R.959 at972. 13n Nafurally, successwill also dependon proving the elementsof the ton, tao OperationDismantle v. The Queen,[ 985] I S.C.R.441 at para.27 . tal Cqnadqv. Roitman,2006FCA 266 atpara. 16. 43 with all of the accompanyingpolicy rationaledescribed above, is not thwartedby a plaintiff. Moreover,unlike the "wait and see"approach adopted by the FederalCourt of Appeal rn Her Majestythe Queenv. Arsenault,r42an early examinationof a plaintiff s claim will ensurethat moneyand resources(including judicial resources)are not wasted on unnecessaryand ultimately unattainable litigation.
iv) Look Beyond Pleadings- Principled Approach
108. The more probing approachto the review of pleadings was adopted by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in Donovan et al. v, The Attorney General to3 of Canada. That Court in Donovan properly found that the applicationsjudge had to apply the legal test of determining the "essence"or "true substance'oof the pleadings to the allegations set out in the statementof claim.too Similarly, the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal in P.E.I. v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)looked beyond the claims of the plaintiffs to determinethat the true essenceof the claim was a challengeto a statutory decision made under the Fisheries Act.|as The Alberta Court of Appeal, the New
Brunswick Court of Appeal and the Quebec Court of Appeal have also looked at the "substance"of the claim to determinewhether a matter should proceedby way ofjudicial review in the FederalCourt.la6
109. The decisionin Donovar demonstratesthe appropriateanalysis that a court should undertake to determine if judicial review in the Federal Court is required prior to determining an action for damages.The Court looked at the "true essence"of the claim in order to determine if it was dependenton invalidating a decision of the federal Crown.
to'2oog FCA242. 'ot Donovan et ql. v. TheAttorney Generqlof Canada,2008NLCA 8 atpara. 14 'on Note 144, para.1,4 tot 2006PESCAD 27 atparas.39-40,48 t4u Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation, 2005 ABCA 15 at para. 63; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v, Privacy Commissionerof Canada and Attorney General of Canada,2009 NBCA 5 at paras.l0-ll; Cqnqdav. Capobianco,J.E,2405-554 (C.A.) 44
This measuredanalytical approach is in line with the intentionof Parliamentas setout in s, 18of theFederal Courts Act.
110. In Donovan, tfuee appealswere heard together. The plaintiffs commencedactions in tort against the Crown for failure to renew a supplementarysnow crab licence (in the Perrot case) and for cancellation and failure to renew snow crab permits in the casesof Donovan and Duffett The Newfoundland and Labrador Superior Court found that the claims were, essentially,challenges to the federalMinister's licensingdecisions and that the review of those decisions was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court.laT
I I 1. The facts of each case are relatively straightforward. Perrot alleged that he was advised by a federal Crown official that his supplementarycrab licence would be held for him by the Crown while he searchedfor a fishing vessel. He further alleged that he was not informed of the need for annual renewal of the licence, but that when he sought to have the licence releasedto him it was refused due to the failure to renew it. He brought an action in negligence.l4sDonovan allegedthat he applied for and receiveda temporary snow crab permit from the federal Crown but that the permit was subsequentlyrevoked after he was chargedwith breach of conditions of the permit under the Fisheries Act and Regulations. He was found not guilty of the chargesby the provincial court. His action against the Crown was in negligenceor breach of fiduciary duty for denying him further renewals before he had been convicted of any offence. The facts in Duffet are essentially the sameas found in Donovan.rae
112. It is significantthat following a review of ss. 17 and 18 of the Federal CourtsAcl and s. 21 of the Crown Liability and ProceedingsAct,the Newfoundlandand Labrador Court of Appeal commencedits analysisby statingthat:
to' Donoron,note 144,para. I toq Donovan,note 144, para.2 t4n Donovan,note 144,paras, 2-8 45
...eachcase must be consideredon its merits to determinewhether in essencethe pleadings amount to a disguised attempt to collaterally attack administrative action of a federal official rather than proceeding by judicial review or whether their true substance must be properly characteized as a legitimate claim for damagesin tort.l50
113. The Court of Appeal then distinguishedthe Perrot appeal from the other two cases on the basis that the claim in Perrot was based on the negligence of the Crown servant in not informing Perrot of the need to renew the licence annually. The administrativedecision of the Minister was not o'atthe heart" of the Petot claim and the claim could succeed without questioning the Minister's decision.tsl The claims in Donovan andDuffett were different in that the allegationsagainst the Crown were all tied to the cancelling or refusal to renew the snow crab fishery permits. The Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of the applicationsjudge that the discretion of the Minister was unfettered and was not tied or dependent upon a successful prosecution under the Fisheries Act.|sz Finally, the Court of Appeal held that to avoid issuesof limitation problemsin respectof actions,the proper approachwould be to commencethe action in tort and stay it pending the resolutionof the judicial review proceedingsin the Federal Court.ls3
114. This last point is of importanceas it respondsto one of the primary concernsof the Ontario Court of Appeal inTeleZone, andthe dissentingreasons of JusticeSharlow in Parrish & Heimbecker.lsaIn addition, s. 18.1(2)of the Federal Courts Act providesfor discretionto extendthe 30 day limitation period. This allows for an appropriatebalance betweenthe need for finality of administrativedecisions, as expressed in Berhad,tssand protection of the right to challenge such decisions even after the 30 day limit has
"o Dororer, note 144,para. 13,quoting Gengev. Canada(Attorney General) (2007),270 Nfld & P.E.I.R. (N.L.C.A.)atpara.40. "' Donouan,note144,paras. 15-16 Donoran, note 144,paras. l8-19 'st"' Donovan,note 144, para.24 ttu Trlezone,note 8, paia. 100;Pawish & Heimbecker,note 8, paras.48-50 t5s Berhad,note 65, para.60 46 expired.l56Therefore, descriptions of "draconian"limitation periods stifling the rights of aggrievedparties are unf,ounded.
G) Application of Proper Statutory Interpretation in McArthur
115. The decisionin McArthur is a virtual mirror of the decision in Grenier, and as such, it offers a good example of the problem associatedwith the narrow approach adoptedby the Ontario Court of Appeal in TeleZone.There can be little argumentthat the SegregationReview Board and other decision makers in Corrections Canadaare federal boards,commissions or tribunalsas definedin s. 2 of the Federal Courts lcf, Decisions of that Board are made pursuant to federal legislation. Except where the remedy of habeas corpus is sought, which can be sought in provincial Superior Courts, these are preciselythe types of decisionsthat Parliamentintended to have reviewedby the Federal Court. The action that was brought flows inevitably from these administrative decisions and an award of damageswould be dependenton a finding of their invalidity.
116. There is a direct correlation between the decisions to keep McArthur in segregationand his claim for damages.He alleged that the damageshe suffered resulted from being placed in segregationand from the on-going legal effectsof the decisionson his prison record.lsTHe acknowledgedthat the legislationprovides for statutoryreviews of such decisions.l58Further, McArthur was notified of the reviews that were conducted for the purposeof reviewinghis placementin administrativesegregation.lse
116. The situation would be different if McArthur had claimed that while in segregationa guard had negligentlyallowed anotherinmate to assaulthim. In such
l'u The factors generally looked at in an extensionoftime application are intention to proceed, arguable case,cause and length ofthe delay and prejudice that may result from the delay. IndependentContrqctors & BusinessAssn. v. Cqnadq (Min of Labour) (1998),225 N.R, 19 atpp.25-26 (F.C.A.); Grewal v. Canadq (Min. of Employment and I mmigration), 1198512 F .C. 263 at p. 272 rs7 AmendedAmended Statement of Claim, paras.24-26,AppealBook, pp. 85-86. rs8 AmendedAmended Statement of Claim, para. l9,Appeal Book, p, 84. r5t Affidavit of PatsyHogel, para.8, Appeal Book, pp. I I l-l12. 47 circumstances,the administrativedecisions to place him in segregationwould not be connectedto the alleged negligenceand the damagesthat allegedly flowed.
118. The segregationof McArthur and the consequencesthat flow from it are legally valid if not declared invalid or unlawful and, consequently,cannot be tortious,160 Contrary to the reasonsof the Ontario Court of Appeal, McArthur directly challengedthe lawfulness of the segregation decisions by arguing that the Crown officials did not comply with their statutory obligationsunder the CorrectionsAct... He also alleged a breach of the Charter.r6r The failure of the Ontario Court of Appeal to isolate the administrative law aspect of the action, and deal with it in the manner prescribed by Parliament, is a direct result of its narrow interpretation of s. 18 and its view that simply bringing an action in damages is suffrcient to override the intention of Parliament. Challenges,including thoseframed in the Charter, to the legality or validity of decisions of federal boards,commissions or tribunals are within the exclusivejurisdiction of the FederalCourt, pursuantto s. lS(1) of the Federal Courts Act.r62However, it is accepted that the Federal Courts Act mvst be read so as not to remove from provincial Superior Courtsthe jurisdiction to declareon the constitutionalvalidity of federallegislation.r63
119. The Court of Appeal also raisedthe spectreof a multiplicity of proceedingsand frustration of plaintiffs becausethey may have to proceed before more than one court.l64 Such concernsare misplaced and not justified. In general,a judicial review application is more timely, lessresource intensive and less expensivethan an action.Unlike an action, there is no paper or oral discovery, nor, generally, is there viva voce evidence.In terms of efficiency of judicial resources, the determination of the validity of a federal t60 Grenier,note2l, para.6l;Prentice,note65, para.32;Tremblay,note65,para.14;Berhad,note65, para.163; Manuge, note 5, para.65. 16r SeeAmended Amended Statement of Claim, paras.15, 19, 23, Appeal Book, p. 83, 84 86. 'u2 Canqdav. Mousseau,(1993), 126N.S.R. (2d) 33 (C.A.) at pp. 39-40;Prentice, note 65, paras.32'33 TzeachtenFirst Nationv. Cqnqdq,[2007]B.C.J. No 385 (B.C.C.A.); Cqnada v. Prince Edward Island, note 146;Reginav. Daniels (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 366 (Sask.C.A.); Mdtivier v. Mayrand, [2003] R.J.Q. 3035(C.A.); Procureur gdndral duCanadav. RaymondChqbot, [2002] J.Q. no975 (C.A.);Nolanv. Canada(1998), 155 D.L.R, @th)728;Chief Joe Hallv. A.G. Canqda,2007BCCA 133 atparas.45-46 tut Law Societyof British Columbia,note 125, pp.326-329. 'uo Telezone,note 8, para, 100. 48 administrative decision through judicial review is more efficient than a trial. Similar savings in time, resourcesand money are also a benefit to the party litigants. As a result, contrary to the view of the Ontario Court of Appeal, following the course set by
Parliament in terms of iudicial review of federal administrative decisions leads to more efficientjustice.
I20. The McArthur appealagain provides a useful example of the utility of the judicial review process.Judicial review of the decisionsto place McArthur in segregationcould have determinedwhether the decisionswere valid. If the decisionswere invalid, his segregationcould have been set asideand his prison record could have been amendedto prevent continuing adverse effects. An action in damagesfiled years later cannot have that immediate remedial effect. Moreover, as McArthur has claimed that the decisions have had an ongoing effect on him, it is incumbenton him to use the processenvisioned by Parliament to overturn those decisions. If the application for judicial review is dismissed,the action in damagesshould also be dismissed.In sum,judicial review would have been the correct and appropriatecourse in the circumstances,
H) IssuesArising from Decisionsof the Federal Court of Appeal.
121. Severalrecent decisions of the FederalCourt of Appeal have commentedon the interpretationand applicationof s. l8(l) of the Federal CourtsAct.They demonstratethe variety of circumstancesin which the issue of when judicial review of a decision of a federalboard, commission or tribunal arises. i) Caution Should Be Used in Conversion of Applications to Actions a) Hinton
122. ln The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Hinton, the Federal Court of Appeal did not view Grenier as an obstacleto converting the application for judicial review into an action if necessaryand appropriate. The Court took the view that the 49 requirementof the motionsjudge to look at the benefitsof proceedingby way of judicial review,as opposed to allowingthe conversion,seemed to be a sufficientguard against the concernsraised in Grenier.l6s
123. The decision in Hinton involved an attemptto convert a judicial review of fees chargedpursuant to the Immigration and RefugeeProtection Regulationsto an action and for the actionto be certifiedas a classaction.166 A proposedclass action was filed but was stayedby the motions judge, who determinedthat becauseof the decisiontn Grenier a judicial review was the appropriate way to challenge the immigration fees. Rather than appeal that decision,the plaintiffs commencedan application for judicial review. The applicants then moved to convert the application into an action and certif,i it as a class action.l6TThe motions judge grantedthe order converting the application for judicial review into an action and certifiedthe classaction.l6s
124. On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal found that concerns raised in Grenier about collateral attacks were of no concern in Hinton as the plaintiffs had correctly proceededby way of judicial review following the original decision of the motions judge.r6e In contrastto the circumstancesin Canada v. Manuge, the FederalCourt of Appeal was of the view that the remedial inadequaciesof judicial review, namely the inability to awarddamages, may be a sufficientbasis to allow the conversion.lT0
125. The decisionin Hinton shouldbe read cautiously.Conversion of judicial reviews to actions on the basis of inadequateremedy should be carefully scrutinized.A claim for a remedy, most often damages,that is not available in judicial review should not be used as a meansto avoidjudicial review.
'6s Hintoin,note 48, paras.43-54. tuuHinton, note 48, para. 1. tui Hinton, note 48, paras.8-12 '68 Hinton, note 48, para.24 t6nHinton,note 48, paras.4l-42 t'o Hinton,note 48, para.49 50
b) Munuge
126. Thedecisionin Manuge provided further clarification and explanation concerning the conversionof judicial reviewapplications to actions.At paragraph60, the Federal Courtof Appealexplained that the conversion,ofan applicationfor judicial reviewinto an action was "exceptional" and was primarily, though not exclusively,limited to evidentiaryissues. The Courtwas clear that suchan exceptiondid not adverselyaffect the integrity of the judicial review processor the intention of Parliamentto provide the Federal Court with exclusivejurisdiction for judicial review of federal boards, commissionsand tribunals. I7l
c) Anglehart
127. The decisionin Manuge was recentlyreferred to by anotherpanel of the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v. Angleharf, where the Court cited paragraph 58 of Manuge with approval.l7zIt should be noted, however, that contrary to what is said in Anglehart, the decision in Manuge does not stand for the proposition that the legal decision under review can be seenas tortious, but rather that the implementation of the decisionmay be madein a tortiousmanner.
ii) Her Majesty v. Arsenaull - Courts Should Not Take "Wait and See" Approach to Determine if Judicial Review Required
128. In Her Majesty the Queenv. Arsenault,tT3the FederalCourt of Appeal asserted that Grenier should not be read as requiring judicial review of an administrative decision when the lawfulnessof that decisionis not at issue.The plaintiffs in Arsenault claimed
t" Manuge,note 5, para.60 t'2 Attorney Generqlof Canadav. Anglehart,2009 FCA 241 atpara. 12. t73 Arsenqult.note 143. 51 damagesfor loss of snow crab fishing quota on the basis of breach of contract or negligent misrepresentation.lTaThe plaintiffs accepted that the Minister's decision regardingthe allocation of the quota was validly made pursuantto the FisheriesAct.t75 However, they argued that the exercise of the discretion in making the decision had causeddamages which entitledthem to compensation.lT6
129. The Crown brought a motion to strike the pleadings on the basis of Grenier. The motion was successfulin front of the Prothonotary,but that decision was reversedby the FederalCourt. In dismissingthe Crown's appealof that decision,the FederalCourt of Appeal concluded that in applying the "plain and obvious" test for striking pleadings,the Court must acceptthe facts as pled and cannot make the claim say something that is not pled.l77The Court of Appeal rejectedthe proposition that the Court must look beyond the pleadingsto determinethe essenceor substanceof the pleadings.The Court took the view that if the issue of the validity of the Minister's decision arose later in the litigation process,it would be dealt with at that time. It seemedto be contentwith the proposition that no party would needlesslyspend money on litigation if the party knew that money and resourceswould be wasted if the validity of the decision first had to be decided throughjudicial review.
130. Although at first glance this result seems to be a pragmatic approach to the determinationof when judicial review of a federal administrativedecision is required, o'wait the and see" approachadopted in Arsenault createsits own problem. It undermines one of the key rationalesof judicial review, which is to achieve the quickest, least expensive and most efficient resolution to litigation. By accepting what is pled without looking at the true essenceof the pleadings,the risk of wasted money and resources remains. Artful pleading can easily disguise the true nature of the issue raised in proceedings.In essence,the Court in Arsenault has adoptedthe approachof the Ontario t1a Arsenault,note143, paras. l-4. 175 Arsenault,note143, paras. 5, 12. 176 Arsenault,note 143,para. 5. t'7 Arsenqult,note 143,paras. 9-10. 52
Court of Appealin TeleZonein respectof taking pleadingson their face.Consequently, the argumentsmade against such an approachin TeleZoneapply equally in dealingwith theFederal Court of AppealinArsenault. iii'1Parrish & Heimbecker - Section 8 of the Crown Liability and Proceeding Act
131. In Panish & Heimbeckerthe Court of Appeal on its own motion raisedthe issue of the effect of ss. 3 and 8 of the Crown r iability and ProceedingsAct on the rationale in Grenier. Section 3 provides for liability of the Crown in tort, while s. 8, in general,is designedto provide the Crown with a defence against a claim for damageswhere there was a valid exerciseof statutory authority. The question posed by the Court was whether s. 8 requiredthat the legality of the Crown's decisionhad to be determinedin judicial review before proceedingwith an action because,otherwise, s. 8 would operateas a defenceto the action.lTs
132. In dealing with the issue of whether judicial review was required, the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal took the view that the Parrish & Heimbecker case fell "squarelywithin the principle" set out in Grenier.tTeTuming to the issue raised by the Court, JusticePelletier concluded that s. 8 of Crown Liability and ProceedingsAct would not be availableas a defencein a casewhere negligence was claimedand that it could not be raised as an alternative ground for the result arrived aI rn Grenier.ts' ln his concurring reasons,Justice Nadon agreedwith the rationale of JusticePelletier but acknowledged "the strength"of the dissentingview of JusticeSharlow.l8l
133. The limited jurisprudenceavailable to JusticePelletier interpreted s. 8 as applying only to non-negligentacts of Crown servants.l82Section 8 confirms that the tort law which appliesto the Crown is "ordinary" tort law - no specialtort liability is createdby
118 Parrish & Heimbecker,note 6,para. 16. t1e Parrish & Heimbeckeronote 6, paras.10, 13. t9o Pqrrish & Heimbecker,note 6,para.2l. t8t Parrish & Heimbecker, note 6, paras.26-27. t82 Parrish & Heimbecker, note 6, paras. 16-21. 53 the Act in respectof things that can only be done by the Crown (through the exerciseof prerogative and statutory powers). Nothing here alters the basic principles of tort law mentioned above. If the activity of the Crown is authorizedby law, no action lies against the Crown. If a lawful statutorydecision imposes consequences, these are not tortious, nor do they constitutefault. Public law decisionmaking does not give rise to a duty of care to avoid public law error, and administrative law errors are insufficient to support a causeof actionin negligence.
134. In her dissent,Justice Sharlow took full aim aI the rationale in Grenier. In her view, s. t8 of the Federal Courts Act did not either state directly, or imply, that the validity of the exercise of the statutory authority of a federal board, commission or tribunal cannot be determined through a trial governed by the Crown Liabitity and ProceedingsAct.tg3 She also referredto the fact that s. 18 is described,in her view, in terms of remedies that may be granted and not decisions that may be challenged. She further held that a court should not require aparry to commencemultiple proceedingsand that the 30 day limitation period for the commeneementof a judicial review may cause prejudice.lsa
135. The interpretationof s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act found in the dissent of Justice Sharlow tracks the samerationale as the Ontario Court of Appeal in TeleZone.As noted aboveothe problem with that rationale is a failure to provide the full contextual interpretation to s. 18 of Ihe Federal Courts Act, as well as a failure to recognize the savings in efficiencies and money by having the validity of a decision determinedby judicial review as opposedto throughan action. iv) Nu-Pharm - Clear Statement of Principted Approach to s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act.
136. In Nu-Pharm, the FederalCourt of Appeal dealt with the issue of whether the relief sought by the appellant in its action amountedto a direct attack on the decision of t83 Pqrrish & Heimbecker,note 6,para,44. 54 the Health Canadaofficial that Nu-Pharm's drug could not be sold legally in Canada.l85 Following a review of paragraphs40 to 42 of the decision in Hinton (noted above), Justice Nadon, for the Court, succinctly set out the relevant principles concerning the applicationof s. l8(1) of the Federal CourtsAct:
t30l Thus, Grenier, supra, is to the effect that becausedecisions of a federal board can only be challengedby way of a judicial review applicationcommenced pursuantto sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, any action which seeksa relief in damageson the premisethat such decisionsare unlawful will not be allowed to proceedunless the decisionshave been challengedby way of a judicial review application.Conversely, if the action does not seek to challenge the validity or lawfulness of a decision of a federal board, the action will be allowed to proceedand to run its course.
[31] That, in my view, is what Grenier, supra, standsfor and the question which must be askedand answeredin order to disposeof the appealis whether the appellant,by its action, seeksto challengethe lawfulnessof a decisionrendered by a federal board. The determinationof that questionrequires that we answertwo other questions,namely, whether the decisionsof the Director Generalconstitute decisions of a federal board and whether Nu-Pharm's action constitutes a collateralattack on or an indirect challengeto the decisionsof a federalboard.186
I) Conclusion - Summary of Principles to Apply
137. The Federal Courts Act clearly requires that where a person seeksa ruling that a decision of a federal board, commissionor tribunal is unlawful or invalid and that its legal effect should be disregarded, that determination must be made through an application for judicial review in the FederalCourt and not in an action for damages.If an action is rooted in the private law aspectsof a relationship betweenparties (including the federal Crown) and the action does not depend upon finding a federal administrative decisionto be invalid or unlawful, then the action can proceedin eitherthe FederalCourt or the provincial Superior Court. t8a Parrish & Heimbecker,note 6, paras.45-48. t" Nu-Phar*, note 4, para.2. ttu Nu-Pharm,note 4, paras.30-31. 55
138. Pleadinga causeof action,or a remedysuch as damages,over which a provincial Superior Court has jurisdiction and which cannot be awarded pursuant to a judicial review applicationunder s. 1S(l) of the Federal CourtsAct, is not a sufficient basisfor a finding that the action is proper$ before the provincial Superior Court. Such a low threshold would thwart the intention of Parliament and undermine the judicial review responsibilitiesof the FederalCourt.
139. As a consequence,it is incumbenton the court to which the plaintiff hasbrought a claim to review it to determine the essentialcharacter of the claim. Innovative pleading should not be permitted as a conduit to bypassthe intention of Parliamentto have certain matters subject to judicial review by the FederalCourt. In determining the "true essence" of the claim, the court shoulddetermine:
i) whetherthe allegedwrong is tiedto a decisionof a federalboard, commission or tribunal;
ii) whetherthe allegedwrong could be a basisto set asidethe decisionof the federalboard. commission or tribunal;
iii) whether the damagesclaimed flow as a result of the decision of a federal board.commission or tribunal; and
iv) whether to succeedin the claim, the plaintiff must necessarilyestablish that a decisionof a federalboard, commission or tribunal is unlawful or invalid and that its legal effect shouldbe disregarded.
140. In McArthur, the plaintiffls action clearly rests on demonstrating that the underlying administrative decisions to place him in segregationwere unlawful. His allegeddamages flow directly from the segregationdecisions, which he did not challenge 56 in proceedings aside from his action. McArthur's claim cannot succeed unless a court determines that the segregationdecisions are not lawful or valid and therefore cannot justiff his segregation.To seek that determination through an action for damagesin the Ontario Superior Court constitutesan impermissible collateral attack on the lawfulness or validity of the segregationdecisions. Consequently, his actionmust fail.
Part IV - Submissionon Costs
141. Thereare no unusualor extraordinarycircumstancesin this appealto suggestthat costsshould not be awardedto the appellant.Therefore,the Attorney General seekshis costsin this Court and the Courtsbelow.
PartV-OrderSought
142. The Appellant requeststhat the appealbe allowedwith costsin this Court and the courtsbelow.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
at Ottawa.Ontario. this 9th
Counselfor the Attorney Generalof Canada 57
Part VI - Table of Authorities
Caselaw Cited at paragraph
L Agence canadienned'inspection des aliments c. Institut professionnelde lafonction publique du Canada,2008 QCCA 1726
2. Alberta Union of Provincial Employeesv, LethbridgeCommunity College,l2004lI S.C.R.727,2004SCC 28
a J. Al-Mhamad v, Canada (Canadian Radio-Televisionand 38 TelecommunicationsCommissiod 2003 FCA 45.
4. ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energlr& Utilities Board), [2006] 1 S.C.R.140,2006 SCC 4
5. Attorney Generalof Canadav. Anglehart,2009 FCA24I t27
6. Attorney General of Canada v. Law Societyof British Columbia, 88,89, 1 18 lre82l2 s.c.R.307
7. Bell ExpressVuv,The Queen,[2002]2 S.C.R.559 67
8. Brochu v. Canada(Attorney General), 120071R.J.Q. 1505 (C.A.) 43
9. Canada(House of Commons)v. Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R.667 t04
10. Canada (Human Rights Commission)v. Canadian Liberty Net, 72,81,88 lleesll s.c.R.626
11. Canada(Labour RelationsBoard) v. Paul L'Anglais Inc.
[1983]I S.C.R.147 58
12. Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration) v, Hinton, 38,122,123, 124 2008FCA 215
13. Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration) v. Khosa, 37,68,78,89 2009scc 12
14. Canadac. Capobianco,2005 QCCA 209 108
15. Canadav. Arsenault.2009FCA242 107,r28,129
16. Canadav. Berhad"2005 CAF 267 47,99, rr4, 118
17. Canadav. Roitmqn.2006FCA266 106
18. Canadav.Tremblav.2004FCA 172 118
19. CanadaTrustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada,[2005] 2 S.C.R.601 67
20. Canadian Foundationfor Children,Youth and the Law v. 67 Canada(Attorney General),120041I S.C.R. 76
21. Chief Joe Hall v. Canada(Attorney General),2007 BCCA 133 ll8
22. Chieuv. Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration), 70
[2002]1 S.C.R.84,2002SCC 3 z). Commonwealthof Puerto Rico v. Hernandez,[1975] 1 S.C.R,228 78
24. Conseildes ports nationeauxv. Langelier,11969lS.C.R. 60 83
25. Cooperv. Hobart, [2001]3 S.C.R.537,2001SCC 79 42 59
26. David Bull Laboratories(Can.) Inc. v. PharmaciaInc., 37 [1ee5]l F.c. s88
27. DenisoLebel inc. c. Qudbec,[1996] R.J.Q. l82l (C.A.) 43
28. DesignServices Ltd. v. Canada,2008SCC 22 52,59
29. Donovan et al. v. TheAttorney Generalof Canada,2008NLCA 8 108,110,111, tl2,113
aa 30. Dr. Q. v. Collegeof Physiciansand Surgeons of British Columbia, JJ [2003],I S.C.R.226
31. Dunsmuirv. NewBrunswick,[2008] I S.C.R 190. 33,34,35,54
)2. Etchesv. Canada,2009ONCA 182 44
aa JJ. Fielding TechnologiesInc. v. TheAttorney General of Canada,2008 ONCA892
34 Finneyv. Barceaudu Qudbec,[2004] 2 S.C.R.17 43
35 Garlandv. Consumers'Gas Co., 1200411 S.C.R. 629 95
36 Gengev. Canada(Attorney General) (2007) 270 Nfld & P.E.I.R. rt2 (NL cA)
37. GestionComplexe Cousineau (1959) Inc. v. Canada(Minister of 56, 60 Public Worksand GovernmentServices), ll995l2 F.C.694 (C.A.)
38. GlenviewCorporationv, Canada, [1990] F.C.J. No,202 55
39. Grewal v. Cqnada (Min. of Employmentand Immigration), lt4 lle8sl2F.c.263
40. Her Majestythe Queen v. Grenier,2005FCA 348 73,74, 47,99, 118
41. Her Majestythe Queenv. Manuge,2009FCA29 7,47,91,ll8, 126
42. Hollandv. Saskntchewen,[2008] 2 S.C.R.551 42,44,45,46
43. Horsemanv,Horse Lake First Nation.2005 ABCA l5 108
44. Howarthv.National Parole Board,11976l I S.C.R.453 78
45. Huntv. CareyCan. Inc., [1990]2 S.C.R.959 at972 105
46. IndependentContractors & BusinessAssn v. Canada(Min of 56,l14 Labour)(1998) 225 N.R. 19
47. Irving ShipbuildingInc. v. Canada(Attorney General), 60,61 2009FCA I l6
48. Justv. BritishColumbia [1989] 2 SCR1228 45
49. M.J.B.Enterprises Ltdv. DefenceConstruction (1951) Ltd. 62 [1e9e]1 S.C.R.61e
50. Mackin v. New Brunswick,120021I S.C.R.405 45
51. Martel BuildingLtd. v. Canada[2000], 2 S.C.R.860 62
52. Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, 78 [1e80]l s.c.R.602 61
53. McNamara Construction (LTestern)Ltd. v. The Queen, 85 lre77)2s.c.R.6s4
54. Mdtivierv. Mayrand,[2003] R.J.Q. 3035 (C.A.) ll8
55. Nolanv.Canada (1998), 155 D.L.R. (4th)728 ll8
56. Nu-PharmInc. v. Canada.2008FCA227 7,136
57. OperationDismantle v. TheQueen, [1985] I S.C.R.441 106
58. Ouimettec. Procureurgdndral du Csnqda,[2002)R.J.Q. 1228 43 (c.A.)
59. Parrish& Heimbeckerv, Canada.2008FCA362 7, rr4,l3l, r32,133,134
60, PEI v. Canada(Fisheries & Oceans),2006 PESCAD 27 108,I l8
61. Peter G. Wite ManagementLtd. v. Her Majesty The QueenIn Right 62 Of Canada,120071 F.C.J. No. 93I
62. Peter G. WhiteManagement Ltd. v. Her Majesty The QueenIn Right Of Canada,March 28,2007,unreported,p.3 (Prothonotary Lafrenidre).
63. Prenticev. Canado,[2006] 3 F.C.R.135 47,718
64. Pringlev. Fraser,ll972l S.C.R.821 78
65. Procureur gdndraldu Canadav. RaymondChabot, 118 62
[2002]J.Q. no gts (C.A.)
66. Proulxv.Qudbec, [2001] 3 S.C.R.9 43
67. QuebecNorth Shore Paper v. C.P.Ltd.,ll977l 2 S.C.R.1054 85
68. R.v. Clay,[2003] 3 S.C.R.735 7l
69. R. v. ConsolidatedMayburn Mines Ltd.,ll998l I S.C.R.706 97,98
70. R.v. Daniels (1991), 65 C.C,C. (3d) 366 (Sask. C.A.) u8
71. R.v. Litchfield,ll993l4 s.c.R. 333 96
72. R. v. ThomasFuller ConstructionCo.(1958) Ltd., 85 lle80lI s.c.R.6es
73. Referencere: Seccessionof Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R.217
74, Schreiberv. Canada(Attorney General), 1200213 S.C.R. 269 71
75. StateFarm MutualAutomobile Insurance Company v. Privacy 108 Commissionerof Canadaand Attorney General of Canada, 2OO9NBCA 5
76. TeleZoneInc, v. AttorneyGeneral (Canada),2008 ONCA 892, 7,9-13,17- 24,60,62, 114,119
77. The Queen(Can.) v. SaskatchewanVfheat Pool, [1983] I S.C.R.205 45
78. Three RiversBoatman Limited c. ConseilCanadien des Relations 80 Ouvridreset al., 11969lR.C,S. 607 63
79. Tremblayv. Canada,[2004] 4 F.C.R.165 47,lI8
80, TzeachtenFirst Nation v. Canada,120071B.C.J.No 385 (B.C.C.A.) 118
81. Vaughanv.Canada [2005], I S.C.R. 24
82. Weberv. OntarioHydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R.929 101
Articles and Texts
83. Bastarache,Michel. Thelaw of bilingual interpretation,(Mark.Jtam, Ont.:LexisNexis Canada" 2008).
84. Baudouin,Jean-Louis et Deslauriers.La Responsabilitdcivile, 40,43 6'6d, (Cowansville,Qudbec : Editions Y. Blais,2003).
85. Brown,Donald J.M. Judicial Review of AdministrativeActions in 79,85 Canada/ by DonaldJ.M. Brownand John M. Evans; with the assistanceof ChristineE. Deacon,(Toronto: Canvasback Publishing,1998).
86. Bushnell,Ian. The Federal Court of Canada,A History, 1875-1992,University of TorontoPress
87. De Smith,S.A. . De Smith'sJudicial Review,6th ed. 44 (London: Sweet& Maxwell,2007).
88. Debatesof theSenate,No. 55 (20 February 1990) at1237-38 87
89. Dussault,Rend & LouisBorgeat, Traitd de droit administratif,2t'^" 43,48 64
6dition,tome III, Qu6bec,Les Presses de l'Universit6 Laval, 1989.
90. Fridman,G.H,L. The Law of Contractin Canada,5th ed. (Toronto: 51,52 Carswell,2006).
91, Garant,Patrice. Droit administratif,5"ed. (Cowansville, Qu6bec : 43 EditionsY.Blais,2004).
92. Hogg,Peter W. andMonahan, Liability of theCrown,3d ed. 48 (Scarborough,Ont.: Carswell, 2000).
93. Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. IV (28May 1951) 83 at3479-3480(Hon. Stuart S. Garson)
94. Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. V (25March 1970) 79,80 at 5469-71(Hon.John N. Turner)
95. Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. I (29October 1970) 79,82,90 at 706-7 07, 7 02-7 07, 7 | l, 72I (Hon.John N. Turner)
96. Houseof CommonsDebates, vol. IV (l November1989) 79,86,90 at 5413-14(Hon. Doug Lewis)
97. Jonesand de Villars, Principles of AdministrativeLaw, 47 4th ed, (ThomsonCarswell, 2004).
98. Klar, Tort Law, 3rded. (Thomson Carswell, 2003). 52
99. D. Lemieux,Le contr1lejudiciaire de I'qctiongouvernementale 79 (Montreal:Centre d'Edition Juridique, 1981).
100. Linden and Feldthusen,Canadian Tort Law, 8th ed. (Butterworths, 39,40,41 2006). 65
101.Minutes of Proceedingsand Evidence of theLegislative Committee 78, 85, 86,87, onBill C-38,34thLeg.2nd sess., No. I 90 (23November 1989) t02.Sullivan, Ruth. Constructionof Statutes,4th ed. (Toronto:Butterworths, 2002). l 03.Standing Committeeon Justice and Legal Affairs, 79 Minutes of Proceedingsand Evidence,2SthLeg. 2ndsess., No. 26 (7 May 1970) 66
PART VII - Legislation
Statutes/ Lois Corrections and Conditional ReleaseAct, Loi sur le systdmecorrectionnel et la mise S.C.1992, c.20 en libertd souscondition 1992,ch.20
Purposeof correctional system But du systdmecorrectionnel
3. The pu{poseofthe federal 3. Le systdmecorrectionnel vise d correctional systemis to contribute to the contribuerau maintiend'une socidtdjuste, maintenanceof ajust, peacefuland safe vivant en paix et en sdcurite,d'une part, en societyby assurantl'ex6cution des peines par des mesuresde gardeet de surveillance (a) carrying out sentencesimposed by s6curitaireset humaines,et d'autre part, en courts through the safe and humane aidant au moyen de programmes custody and supervisionof offenders; appropri6sdans les pdnitenciersou dans la and collectivit6,d la r ladaptationdes ddlinquantset d leur rdinsertionsociale d (b) assistingthe rehabilitationof titre de citoyensrespectueux des lois. offendersand their reintegrationinto the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programsin penitentiariesand in the community.
Lands constituting penitentiary Certifi cat d' emplacerqent
8. In any proceedingsbefore a court in 8. Dans toute instanceau Canadaoir se Canadain which a questionarises posela questionde l'emplacementou de la concerningthe location or descriptionof superficie de terrains constitudsen landsalleged to constitutea penitentiary,a pdnitencier,le certificaten prdcisantle lieu certificate purporting to be signedby the et les limites et censdsignd par le Commissioner,setting out the locationor commissaireest admissibleen preuveet, descriptionof thoselands as constitutinga saufpreuve contraire, fait foi de son penitentiary, is admissiblein evidenceand, contenu. in the absenceof any evidenceto the contrary, is proof that the lands as located or describedin the certificate constitutea penitentiary.
Objet Purpose 31.... 31..... (3) Le directeurdu pdnitencierpeut, s'il (3) The institutional head may order that est convaincu qu'il n'existe aucuneautre 67 an inmate be confined in administrative solutionvalable, ordonner l'isolement segregationif the institutional head believes prdventifd'un d6tenulorsqu'il a desmotifs on reasonablegrounds raisonnablesde croire, selonle cas :
(a) that a) que celui-ci a agi, tentdd'agir ou a I'intention d'agir d'une manidre (i) the inmate has acted,has compromettantla s6curitdd'une attemptedto act or intends to act in a personneou du pdnitencieret que son mannerthat jeopardizesthe security maintien parmi les autresddtenus of the penitentiary or the safetyof mettrait en dangercette sdcuritd; any person,and b) que son maintien parmi les autres (ii) the continuedpresence of the d6tenuspeut nuire au d6roulement inmatein the generalinmate d'une enqu6tepouvant mener d une population would jeopardize the accusationsoit d'infraction criminelle security of the penitentiary or the soit d' infraction disciplinaire grave safetyof any person, vis6eau paragraphealQ);
(&) that the continuedpresence ofthe c) que le maintien du ddtenuau sein de inmate in the generalinmate population I'ensembledes d6tenus mettrait en would interfere with an investigation dangersa s6curit6. that could lead to a criminal chargeor a chargeunder subsection 4l(2) ofa seriousdisciplinary offence, or
(c) that the continuedpresence ofthe inmate in the generalinmate population would jeopardizethe inmate'sown safety, and the institutional head is satisfiedthat there is no reasonablealternative to administrativesegregation.
Crown Liability and ProceedingsAct, R.5., Loi sur la responsabilitdcivite de l'Etat et 1985,c. C-50 le contentieuxadministratif L.R. (1985), ch.C-50
Liabilitv Responsabilit6
3. The Crown is liable for the damages f. En matidrede responsabilitd,l'Etat for which, if it were a person,it would be estassimil6 d unepersonne pour : 68 liable a) dansla province de Qu6bec : (a) in the Province of Quebec,in respect (i) le dommagecausd par la faute de of sesprdposds, (i) the damagecaused by the fault of (ii) le dommagecausd par le fait des a servantof the Crown, or biensqu'il a soussa gardeou dont il est propridtaire ou par sa faute d (ii) the damageresulting from the act I'un ou l'autre de cestitres; of a thing in the custody of or owned by the Crown or by the fault of the b) dans les autresprovinces : Crown as custodianor owner; and
(i) les d6lits civils commis par ses (b) in any otherprovince, in respectof pr6pos6s, (i) a tort committed by a servantof (ii) les manquementsaux the Crown, or obligationsli6es d la propridtd,d I'occupation,d la possessionou d la (ii) a breachof duty attachingto the gardede biens. ownership,occupation, possession or control of property.
Comnetenceconcurrente des tribunaux Concurrentjurisdiction of provincial court provinciaux 21. (1) In all caseswhere a claim is 21. (l) Dans les casde rdclamation made againstthe Crown, except where the visant l'Etatpour lesquelsla Cour f6d6rale FederalCourt has exclusivejurisdiction n'a pas compdtenceexclusive, a with respectto it, the superior court of the compdtenceconcurente en la matidre la province in which the claim ariseshas cour sup6rieurede la province oir survient concunentjurisdiction with respectto the la caused'action. subject-matterof the claim. Affaires pend-antesdevant la Cour feddrale Whereproceedings pending in Federal Court (2) Aucun tribunal provincial n'est compdtentpour connaitred'une poursuite (2) No courtin a provincehas si une autre,intentde pour le mOmefait jurisdiction to entertainany proceedings g6n6rateurpat la m0me personne- que ce takenby a personif proceedingstaken by soit avant ou aprdsle d6but de la premidre that person in the FederalCourt in respect -, est pendantedevant la Cour fdddrale. of the samecause of action, whether taken before or after the proceedingsare taken in the court, are pending. 69
FederqlCourts.4cf, R.S., 1985, c. F-7 Loi sur les Cours fdddrales. LR. (1985), ch. F-7
FederqlCourt . Appeal Division Maintien : sectiond'q)pel continued f. La Sectiond'appel, aussi appel6e la fne division of the FederalCourt of Cour d'appel ou la Cour d'appel f6d6rale, Canadacalled the FederalCourt - Appeal estmaintenue et ddnommde< Cour d'appel Division is continuedunder the name fdd6rale > en frangaiset < Federal Court of "FederalCourl of Appeal" in English and Appeal > en anglais. Elle est maintenueir "Cour d'appel fed6rale"in French.It is titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, continued as an additional court of law, d'equity et d'amirautedu Canada,propre d equity and admiralty in and for Canada,for am6liorerl'application du droit canadien, the better administration of the laws of et continue d'€tre une cour supdrieure Canadaand as a superior court ofrecord d'archives ayant compdtenceen matidre having civil and criminaljurisdiction. civile et p6nale.
Rdparationcontre la Couronne Relief againstthe Cfown 17. (1) Saufdisposition contraire de la 17. (1) Exceptas otherwiseprovided in prdsenteloi ou de toute autreloi feddrale, this Act or any other Act of Parliament,the la Cour f6ddralea comp6tenceconcurrente, FederalCourt has concurrentoriginal en premidre instance,dans les cas de jurisdiction in all casesin which relief is demandede rdparationcontre la Couronne' claimed againstthe Crown. Motifs Cases (2) Elle a notamment competence (2) Without restricting the generality of concurrenteen premidre instance,sauf subsection(1), the FederalCourt has dispositioncontraire, dans les casde concurrentoriginal jurisdiction, exceptas demandemotivds par : otherwiseprovided, in all casesin which
a) la possessionpar la Couronnede (a) the land, goods or money of any terres,biens ou sommesd'argent personis in the possessionof the appartenantd autrui; Crown;
b) un contrat conclu par ou pour la (b) the claim arisesout ofa contract Couronne; enteredinto by or on behalf of the Crown; c) un troublede jouissance dont la Couronnese rend coupable; (c) thereis a claim againstthe Crown for injurious affection;or d) une demandeen dommages-intdr€ts formdeau titre dela Loi sur la (d) the claim is for damagesunder the responsabilitdcivile de I'Etat et le Crown Liability and ProceedingsAct. 70
cont e nt i eux adrnini str at if.
Crown and subject: consentto jurisdiction Conventionsdcrites attributives de (3) The FederalCourt hasexclusive comp6tencq original jurisdiction hear and determine to (3) Elle a comp6tenceexclusive, en the following matters: premidreinstance, pour les questions suivantes: (a) the amount to be paid if the Crown and any personhave agreedin writing a) le paiementd'une sommedont le that the Crown or person shall pay that montant est ir ddterminet, aux termes an amount to be determinedby the d'une convention6crite d laquellela FederalCourt, the FederalCourt - Couronneest partie, par la Cour Trial Division the ExchequerCourt of or fed6rale- ou I'ancienneCour de Canada;and I'Echiquier du Canada- ou par la Sectionde premidreinstance de la Cour (&) any question fact or mixed of law, f6ddrale; law and fact that the Crown and any personhave agreedin writing shall be b) toute questionde droit, de fait ou determinedby the FederalCourt, the mixte d trancher,aux termes d'une FederalCourt - Trial Division or the convention dcrite ir laquelle la ExchequerCourt of Canada. Couronneest partie, par la Cour f6d6rale I'ancienneCour de l'Echiquier du Canada- ou Par la Sectionde premidreinstance de la Cour f6ddrale.
Conflicting claims agajnstCrown Demandescontradictoires contre la (4) The FederalCourt has concurrent Couronne jurisdiction original to hearand determine (4) Elle a compdtenceconcunente, en proceedingsto determinedisputes in which premidreinstance, dans les procddures the Crown is or may be under an obligation visant drr6gler les diff6rends mettant en and in respectof which there are or may be causela Couronned proposd'une conflictins claims. obligationr6elle ou dventuellepouvant faire l'objet de demandescontradictoires.
Relief in favour of Crown or againstofficer Actions en rdparation (5) The FederalCourt has concurrent (5) Elle a comp6tenceconcurente, en jurisdiction original premidreinstance, dans les actionsen r6parationintentdes : (a) in proceedingsof a civil naturein which the Crown or the Attorney a) au civil par la Couronneou le 7l
Generalof Canadaclaims relief; and procureurgdndral du Canada;
(b) in proceedingsin which relief is b) contreun fonctionnaire,pr6posd ou sought againstany personfor anything mandatairede la Couronnepour des doneor omittedto be done in the faits- actesou omissions- suryenus performanceof the duties of that person dansle cadrede sesfonctions. as an officer, servantor agentof the Crown. Incomodtencede la Cour fdddrale FederalCourt hasno jurisdiction (6) Elle n'a pas comp6tencedans les (6) If an Act of Parliamentconfers cas oir une loi f6d6raledonne compdtence jurisdiction in respectof a matteron a court d un tribunal constitu6 ou maintenu sousle constitutedor establishedby or undera law r6gimed'une loi provincialesans pr6voir of a province, the FederalCourt has no express6mentla comp6tencede la Cour jurisdiction to entertainany proceedingin fdd6rale. respectof the samematter unless the Act expresslyconfers thatjurisdiction on that court.
Extraordinary remedies.federal tribunals Recoursextraordinaires : offtces f6ddraux
18. (1) Subjectto section28, the.Federal 1S.(1) Sousrdserve de l'article28,la Court hasexclusive original jurisdiction Cour fdddralea compdtenceexclusive, en premidreinstance, pour : (a) to issuean injunction,writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition,writ of a) ddcernerune injonction,un brefde mandamusor writ of quo warranto, or certiorari, de mandamus,de grant declaratoryrelief, againstany prohibition ou de quo warranto, ov federalboard, commission or other pour rendre un jugement ddclaratoire tribunal; and contre tout office fed6ral;
(b) to hear and determineany b) connaitre de toute demandede applicationor otherproceeding for relief r6parationde la nature visde par in the nature of relief contemplatedby l'alin6a a), et notammentde toute paragraph(a), including any proceeding proc6dureengagde contre le procureur brought againstthe Attorney Generalof g6n6raldu Canadaafin d'obtenir Canada,to obtain relief againsta federal r6parationde la part d'un office f6ddral. board.commission or othertribunal. 72
Recoursextraordinaires : Forces Extraordipary remedies,members of canadiennes CanadianForces (2) Elle a compdtenceexclusive, en (2) The FederalCourt has exclusive premidreinstance, dans le casdes original jurisdiction to hear and determine demandessuivantes visant un membre des everyapplication for a writ of habeas Forcescanadiennes en poste ir l'dtranger : corpusad subjiciendum,writof certiorari, bref d'habeascorpus ad subjiciendum,de writ of prohibition or writ of mandamusin certiorari, de prohibition ou de mandamus. relation to any member of the Canadian Exercicedes recours Forcesserving outside Canada. (3) Les recourspr6vus aux paragraphes Remediesto be obtainedon application (1) ou (2) sont exerc6spar prdsentation (3) The remediesprovided for in d'une demandede contr6leiudiciaire. subsections(1) and (2) may be obtained only on an applicationfor judicial review madeunder section 18.1.
18.1(l) Unedemande de contr6lejudiciaire 1S.1(1) An applicationfor judicial review peut 6trepr6sentde par le procureurg6n6ral may be made by the Attorney General of du Canadaou par quiconqueest directement Canada or by anyone directly affected by touchdpar l'objet de la demande. the matter in respect of which relief is sought. (2) Les demandesde contr6lejudiciaire sont drprdsenter dans les trente jours qui (2) An applicationfor judicial review suivent la premidre communication,par in respectof a decision or an order of a l'office f6d6ral,de sa d6cisionou de son federal board, commission or other ordonnanceau bureau du sous-procrreurtribunal shall be made within 30 days after g6n6raldu Canadaou d la partieconcern6e, the time the decision or order was first ou dansle d6laisuppl6mentaire qu'un juge communicated by the federal board, de la Cour feddralepeut, avant ou aprds commissionor other tribunal to the office l'expirationde ces trentejours, fixer ou of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada accorder. or to the party directly affected by it, or within any further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or after the end ofthose 30 days. (3) Sur prdsentationd'une demandede contr6lejudiciaire, la Cour f6d6ralepeut : (3) On an application for judicial review, the FederalCourt may a) ordonner d l'office f6d6ral en cause d'accomplir tout acte qu'il a (a) order a federal board, commission illdgalementomis ou refusdd'accomplir or other tribunal to do any act or thing ou dont il a retardd l'ex6cution de it has unlawfully failed or refusedto do na t)
manidreddraisonnable: or has unreasonablydelayed in doing; or b) d6clarernul ou ill6gal,ou annuler,ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement (b) declare invalid or unlawful, or conformdmentaux instructionsqu'elle quash,set asideor set asideand refer estime approprides,ou prohiber ou back for determinationin accordance encore restreindre toute ddcision, with suchdirections as it considersto ordonnance,proc6dure ou tout autreacte be appropriate,prohibit or restrain,a de l'office fdd6ral. decision,ordero act or proceedingof a federal board, commissionor other (4) Les mesurespr6vues au paragraphe tribunal. (3) sont prises si la Cour feddraleest convaincueque l'office fdddral,selon le (a) The FederalCourt may grantrelief cas: undersubsection (3) if it is satisfiedthat the federal board. commission or other a) a agi sans compdtence, outrepassd tribunal celle-ci ou refusdde l'exercer; (a) acted without jurisdiction, acted b) n'a pas observ6un principe de justice beyond its jurisdiction or refused to naturelle ou d'6quitd proc6durale ou exerciseits jurisdiction; toute autre procddure qu'il 6tait l6galementtenu de respecter; (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or c) a rendu une ddcision ou une other procedurethat it was required by ordonnance entachde d'une erreur de law to observe; droit, que celle-ci soit manifesteou non au vu du dossier; (c) ened in law in making a decisionor an order, whether or not the error d) a rendu une d6cision ou une appearson the face ofthe record; ordonnance fondde sur une conclusion de fait erronde,tir6e de fagon abusive ou (d) based its decision or order on an arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des enoneousfinding of fact that it made in 6l6mentsdont il dispose; a perverse or capricious manner or without rcgard for the material before e) a agi ou omis d'agir en raison d'une it; fraude ou de faux t6moignages; (e) acted,or failed to act, by reasonof fl a agi de toute autre fagon contraire d la fraud or perjuredevidence; or loi. (fl acted in any other way that was (5) La Cour feddralepeut rejeter toute contrary to law. demande de contrdle judiciaire fond6e uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle (5) If the sole ground for relief estimequ'en I'occurrencele vice n'entraine establishedon an application for judicial aucun dommageimportant ni d6ni de justice review is a defect in form or a technical 74 et, le cas echdant,valider la d6cision ou inegularity, the FederalCourt may l'ordonnance entach6e du vice et donner effet d celle-ci selon les modalit6sde temps (a) refuse the relief if it finds that no et autresqu'elle estimeindiqu6es. substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred;and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision ot order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considersappropriate.
Hearings in summaryway Procdduresommaire d'audition 18.4(l) Subjectto subsection(2), an application or referenceto the FederalCourt 18.4 (1) Sousr6serve du paragraphe underany of sectionsl8.l to 18.3shall be (2),la Cour fdddralestatue d bref d6lai et heard and determinedwithout delay and in a selonune proc6duresommaire sur les summaryway. demandeset les renvois qui lui sont pr6sent6sdans le cadredes articles l8.l d 18.3. Judicialreview
28. (1) The FederalCourt ofAppeal has Contr6lejudiciaire jurisdiction to hearand determine applicationsfor judicial review madein 23. (l) La Cour d'appelfdddrale a respectof any of the following federal compdtencepour connaitre des demandes boards,commissions or othertribunals: de contrdlejudiciaire visant les offrces fdd6raux suivants : (a) the Board of Arbitration established by the CanadaAgricultural Products a) le conseil d'arbitrage constitudpar la Act; Loi sur lesproduits agricolesau Canada; (6) the Review Tribunal establishedby the CanadaAgricultural Products Act; b) la commissionde rdvision constitu6e par cetteloi; (b./) the Conflict of Interestand Ethics Commissionerappointed under section b.1)le commissaireaux conflits 81 of the Parliamentof CanadaAct; d'int6r6tset d l'dthique nommd en vertu de l'article 81 de la Loi sur le (c) the CanadianRadio-television and Parlementdu Canada: TelecommunicationsCommission establishedby the Canadian Radia- c) le Conseilde la radiodiffusionet des televi s ion and Tele c ommunic ations tdldcommunicationscanadiennes CommissionAct: constitu6par la Loi sur le Conseilde la 75
radiodffision et des (d) the PensionAppeals Board t,!I dc o mmuni c ati ons canadi e nne s ; establishedby the Canuda Pension Plan: fl la Commissiond'appel des pensions constitudepar le Rdgimede pensions (e) the CanadianInternational Trade du Canada: Tribunal establishedby the Canadian Internqtional Trade Tribunal Act'. e) le Tribunal canadiendu commerce extdrieurconstitud par la Loi sur le (fl the National Energy Board Tribunal canadiendu commerce establishedby the National Energy exldrieur; Board Act;
l) l'Office nationalde l'dnergie (g) c.49, s. 128] [Repealed,1992, constitudpar la Loi sur I'Affice national de l'dnergie; (h) the CanadaIndustrial Relations Board establishedby the Canada g) [Abrogd,1992,ch. 49, art.l28l Labour Code; ft) le Conseilcanadien des relations (t) the Public ServiceLabour Relations industrielles au sensdu Code canadien Board establishedby the Public Service du travail; Labour RelationsAct; l) la Commissiondes relations de the CopyrightBoard establishedby f) travail dans la fonction publique the Copyright Act; constitu6epar la Loi sur les relations de travail dans lafonction publique; (ft) the CanadianTransportation Agency establishedby the Canada 7) la Commissiondu droit d'auteur Transportation Act; constitu6epar la Loi sur le droit d'auteur: (f [Repealed,2002,c. 8, s. 35] ft) l'Office destransports du Canada (rn) umpires under the appointed constitu6par la Loi sur les transports EmploymentInsurance Act; au Canada;
(n) the Competition Tribunal established | [Abrog6, 2002,ch. 8, art. 35] by the CompetitionTribunal Act; m) lesjuges-arbitresnommds en vertu (o) assessorsappointed under the dela Loi sur l'assurance-emploi; Canada Depos it Insurance Corporation Act; n) le Tribunal de la concurrence constitu6par la Loi sur le Tribunal de (p) the and Producers CanadianArtists Ia concurrence; ProfessionalRelations Tribunal establishedby 10(l) ofthe subsection o) les 6valuateursnomm6s en 76
Statusof theArtist Act; applicationdela Loi sur la Socidtd d' assuranc e -ddp6t s du Canada; (q) thePublic Servants Disclosure ProtectionTribunal established by the p) le Tribunal canadiendes relations Public ServantsDisclosure Protection professionnellesartistes-producteurs Act: and constitu6par le paragraphe10(l) de la Loi sur le statut de I'artiste; (r) the SpecificClaims Tribunal establishedby the SpecificClaims q) le Tribunal de la protectiondes TribunalAct. fonctionnairesdivulgateurs d'actes constitu6par la Loi sur Sectionsapply r6pr6hensibles la protection desfonctionnaires (2) Sections18 to 18.5,except divulgat eur s d' actes r dprdhens ible s ; subsection18.4(2), apply, with any modifications that the circumstances r) le Tribunal desrevendications require,in respectof anymatter within the particulidresconstitud par la Loi sur le jurisdictionof theFederal Court of Appeal Tribunal des revendications undersubsection (l) and,when they apply, particulidres. a referenceto the FederalCourt shall be readas a referenceto the FederalCourt of Appeal. Dispositions-applicables (2) Les articles18 a 18.5s'appliquent, paragraphe18.4(2) et FederalCourt deprivgd ofjurisdiction exception faite du compte tenu des adaptationsde (3) If theFederal Court of Appealhas circonstance,d la Cour d'appel feddrale jurisdictionto hearand determine a matter, commesi elle y 6tait mentionnde theFederal Court has no jurisdiction to lorsqu'elleest saisieen vertu du entertainany proceeding in respectofthat paragraphe(1) d'une demandede contr6le matter. judiciaire.
Incompdtencede la Courfdd6rale (3) La Courfeddrale ne peut 6tre saisie desquestions qui reldventde la Cour d'appelf6ddrale.
Rules and Regulations / Rigles et R6glements Corre ctions and ConditionalReleas e Rdglementsur le systdmecoruectionnel et Regulations, SOR/92-620 la miseen libert,i souscondition, 77
DORS/92-620
!Q. Where an inmate is involuntarily 20.Lorsque I'isolement prdventif est confined in administrative segregationby a imposdau ddtenu par I'agent ddsignd staff member designatedin accordancewith conformdmentd I'alind a 6(I)c), le directeur paragraph6(1)(c), the institutionalhead du p6nitencierdoit, au coursdu jour shall review the order within one working ouvrablesuivant I'isolement, examiner day after the confinement and shall confirm I'ordred'isolement et confirmerI'isolement the confinement or order that the inmate be ou ordonnerque le ddtenusoit retournd returnedto the generalinmate population. parmi les autresd6tenus.
21.... 21...,.
(2) A SegregationReview Board referredto (2)Le comitdde rdexamen des cas in subsection(1) shall conducta hearing d'isolementvis6 au paragraphe (1) doit tenir uneaudition : (a) within five working days after the inmate'sconfinement in administrative a) dansles cinqjours ouvrables suivant segregation;and I'isolementpr6ventif du ddtenu;
(b) at least once every 30 days thereafter b) parla suite,au moins une fois tous that the inmate remains in administrative les30 jours tant qu'est maintenu segregation. I'isolementpr6ventif du ddtenu.
22. Where an inmate is confined in p. Lorsquele ddtenuest mis enisolement administrative segregation,the head of the prdventif,le responsablede la r6gionou region or a staff memberin the regional I'agentde I'administrationr6gionale headquarterswho is designatedby the head ddsigndpar lui doit examinerson cas au of the region shall review the inmate'scase moinsune fois tousles 60 jours pendant at least once every 60 days that the inmate qu'il esten isolement prdventif pour remainsin administrativesegregation to ddcider,selon les motifs dnoncds d I'article determinewhether, basedon the 31 de la Loi, si le maintiende cettemesure considerationsset out in section31 of the estjustifi6. Act, the administrative segregationof the inmatecontinues to be iustified.
Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Rigles des coursflddrales en matidre Protection Rule s, SOR/93-22 d'immigration et deprotection des rdfugids,DORS/93-22 78
22. No costs shall be awardedto or payable 22. Saufordonnancecontraire renduepar by any party in respectof an application for unjuge pour desraisons sp6ciales, la leave,an applicationforjudicial review or demanded'autorisation, la demandede an appealunder theseRules unlessthe contrdlejudiciaire ou I'appel introduit en Court, for specialreasons, so orders. applicationdes pr6sentes rdgles ne donnent pas lieu d des d6pens.
Federal Courts RulesSOR/98-106" Rules Rdglesdes Coursfdd,lrales, DORS/98- 300-318,407 106
Application Application 300. This Part appliesto 300. La pr6sentepartie s'applique:
(a) applicationsfor judicial review of a) auxdemandes de contr6lejudiciaire administrative action, including de mesuresadministratives, y compris applicationsunder section18.1 or 28 of les demandesprdsentdes en vertu des the Act, unlessthe Court directs under articles18.1 ou 28 de la Loi, d moins subsection18.4(2) of the Act that the que la Cour n'ordonne,en vertu du application be treatedand proceeded paragraphe18.4(2) de la Loi, de les with as an action: instruirecomme des actions;
(b) proceedingsrequired or permitted by b) aux instancesengagdes sous le or under an Act of Parliamentto be rdgimed'une loi fdd6raleou d'un texte broughtby application,motion, d'applicationde celle-ci qui en pr6voit originatingnotice of motion, originating ou en autorisel'introduction par voie summonsor petition or to be determined de demande,de requ6te,d'avis de in a summary way, other than requOteintroductif d' instance, applicationsunder subsection 33(1) of d'assignationintroductive d' instance the Marine Liability Act; ou de p6tition, ou le rdglementpar procdduresommaire, d l'exceptiondes (c) appealsunder subsectionl4(5) ofthe demandesfaites en vertu du paragraphe CitizenshipAct; 33(1) de la Loi sur la responsabilitden matiire maritime: (@ appealsunder section56 ofthe Trade-marksAct; c) aux appelsinterjetds en vertu du paragraphe1a(5) de laLoi sur la (e) referencesfrom a tribunal under rule citoyennetd; 320; d; aux appelsinterjetes en vertu de (l) requestsunder the Commercial I'article 56 de la Loi sur les marquesde Arbitration Code brought pursuantto commerce; subsection32aQ); e) aux renvoisd'un office feddralen 79
vertude la rdgle320; (g) proceedingstransferred to the Court under subsection3(3) or 5(3) ofthe fl auxdemandes pr6sentdes en vertudu Divorce Act; and Coded'arbitrage commercial qui sont vis6esau paragraphe 324(l); (h) applicationsfor registration, recognitionor enforcementof a foreign g) aux actionsrenvoydes d la Couren judgment brought under rules 327 to vertudes paragraphes 3(3) ou 5(3)de la 334. Loi sur le divorce: SORi2002-417, s. 18(E);SOR/2004-283, s. an pourI'enregistrement, )t. h) auxdemandes la reconnaissanceoul'exdcution d'un jugement6tranger vis6es aux rdgles 327d334. GeneralContents of application DORS/2002-417,art. 1 8(A); DORS/2004- 301. An applicationshall be commencedby 283,art.37 . a notice of applicationin Form 301, setting out Dispositionsg6n6rales
(a) the name of the court to which the - applicationis addressed; Avis de demande forme et contenu 301. La demandeest introduite par un avis (b) the namesof the applicant and de demande,6tabliselon la formule301, respondent; qui contient les renseignementssuivants :
(c) where the application is an a) le nom de la cour d laquellela applicationfor judicial review, demandeest adressde;
(i) the tribunal in respectof which b) les noms du demandeuret du the application is made, and ddfendeur;
(ii) the date and details of any order c) s'il s'agit d'une demandede contr6le in respectof which judicial review is judiciaire: sought and the date on which it was first communicatedto the applicant; (i) le nom de I'office f6ddralvis6 par la demande, (d) a precisestatement of the relief sought; (ii) le cas6ch6ant, la dateet les particularit6s de l'ordonnance qui (e) a completeand concisestatement of fait l'objet de la demandeainsi que the grounds intendedto be argued, la datede la premidre including a referenceto any statutory communication de l'ordonnance au provision or rule to be relied on; and demandeur; 80
(/) alist of the documentaryevidence to d) un 6nonc6prdcis de la r6paration be usedat the hearingof the application. demand6e;
SOR/2004-283,s.36. e) un 6nonc6complet et concisdes motifs invoquds,avec mention de toute dispositionl6gislative ou rdgle Limitedto singleorder applicable; 302.Unless the Court orders otherwise, an applicationfor judicialreview shall be l) la liste desdocuments qui seront limitedto a singleorder in respectof which utilisdsen preuve i l'auditionde la reliefis sought. demande.
DORS/2004-283, art. 3 6. Respondents 303.(1) Subjectto subsection(2), an applicantshall name as a respondentevery Limites person 302. Saufordonnance contraire de la Cour, la demandede contr6lejudiciaire ne peut (a) directlyaffected by the ordersought porterque sur une seule ordonnance pour in the application,other than a tribunal laquelleune r6paration est demandde. in respectof whichthe application is brought;or Ddfendeur"s (b) requiredto be namedas a party 303.(1) Sousrdserve du paragraphe(2), le underan Act of Parliamentpursuant to demandeurddsigne d titre de ddfendeur: which the applicationis brought. a) toutepersonne directement touch6e parI'ordonnance recherch6e, autre que l'office f6d6ralvis6 par la demande; Application for judicial review (2) Where in an applicationfor judicial b) touteautre personne qui doit €tre review there are no personsthat can be d6sign6ed titre de partieaux termesde namedunder subsection (l), the applicant la loi f6ddraleou de sestextes shall name the Attorney Generalof Canada d'applicationqui prdvoientou as a respondent. autorisentla pr6sentationde la demande. Substitution for Attorney General (3) On a motion by the Attorney Generalof Canada,where the Court is satisfiedthat the Ddfendeurs- demandede contrdle Attorney Generalis unable or unwilling to judiciaire act as a respondentafter having been named (2) Dans une demandede contrdle undersubsection (2), the Court may judiciaire, si aucunddfendeur n'est ddsignd substituteanother person or body, including en applicationdu paragraphe(1), le the tribunal in respectof which the demandeurddsigne le procureur gdn6raldu applicationis made,as a respondentin the 8l place of the Attorney Generalof Canada. Canadad ce titre.
Serviceof notice of application Remplagantdu procureur g6n6ral 304. (1) Unlessthe Court directsotherwise, (3) La Cour peut, surrequdtedu procureur within 10 days after the issuanceof a notice g6ndraldu Canada,si elle est convaincue of application, the applicant shall serveit on que celui-ci est incapabled'agir ir titre de d6fendeurou n'est pas dispos6d le faire (a) all respondents; aprdsavoir 6t6 ainsi ddsigndconformdment au paragraphe(2), ddsigneren (b) in respectofan applicationfor remplacementune autre personneou judicial review or an application entit6,y comprisl'office fdddralvisd par la appealingthe order of a tribunal, demande.
(i) in respectof an application other than one relating to a decision of a Sisnificationde I'avis de demande visa officer, the tribunal in respectof 304. (1) Saufdirectives contraires de la which the application is brought, Cour, le demandeursignifie I'avis de demandedans les l0 iours suivantsa (ii) any otherperson who ddlivrance: participated in the proceedingbefore the tribunal in respectof which the a) aux d6fendeurs; applicationis made,and b) s'il s'agit d'une demandede contr6le (iii) the Attorney Generalof Canada; judiciaire ou d'un appeld'une ordonnanced'un office fdd6ral: (c) where the application is made under the Accessto Information Act, Part I of (i) d I'offrce f6d6ralvisd Parla the Personal Information Protection and demande,sauf s'il s'agit d'un agent Electronic DocumentsAct, the Privacy desvisas, Act or the Official LanguagesAct,the Commissionernamed for the purposes (ii) d toute autre personnequi a of that Act; and participdd I'instancedevant I'office fed6ralvis6 par la demande, (d) artyother personrequired to be servedunder an Act of Parliament (iii) au procureur g6n6raldu pursuantto which the application is Canada; brousht. c) si la demandeest prdsentde en vertu de la Loi sur I'accdsd I'information,la Loi sur la protection des Motion service for directionsas to r ense i gnement s pers onnel s, la partie I (2) Where there is any uncertainty as to who dela Loi sur la protection des persons are the appropriate to be served renseignementspersonnels et les with notice the applicant a of application, documentsdlectronisues ou la Loi sur may bring an exparte motion for directions 82 to the Court. les languesfficielles, au commissaire compdtentsous le rdgimede cetteloi;
Proof of service d) d touteautre personne devant en (3) Proof of serviceof a noticeof recevoirsignification aux termesde la applicationshall be filed within l0 days loi f6d6raleou de sestextes after service of the notice of application. d'applicationqui pr6voientou autorisentla prdsentationde la SOR/2004-283, 16. s. demande.
Notice of appearance 305. A respondentwho intends to opposean Directivessur laSignification application shall, within l0 days after being (2) En cas de doute quant d savoir qui doit servedwith a notice of application, serve recevoirsignification de l'avis de and file a notice of appearancein Form 305. demande,le demandeurpeut, par voie de requ€teex parte, demanderdes directives d la Cour. Applicant's affidavits 306. Within 30 daysafter issuanceof a notice of application,an applicantshall Preuvede signification serveand file its supporting affidavits and (3) La preuvede la significationde I'avis jours documentaryexhibits. de demandeest ddpos6e dans les l0 suivant cette signification. SOR/2007-301,s. 12(F). DORS/2004-283,art.16.
Respondent'saffi davits 307. Within 30 daysafter serviceof the Avis de comparution jours applicant'saff,rdavits, a respondentshall 305. Dans les 10 aprdsavoir regu le serveand file any supporting affidavits and significationde I'avis de demande, documentaryexhibits. ddfendeur,s'il entends'opposer d la demande,signifie et d6poseun avis de SOR/2007-301,s. 12(F). comparution,6tabli selonla formule 305.
Cross-examinations Affidavits du demandeur 30f. Dans les 30 jours suivantla fQ!. Cross-examinationon affidavits must le be completedby all parties within 20 days d6livrancede I'avis de demande, after the filing of the respondent'saffidavits demandeursignifie et ddposeles affidavits qu'il entend or the expirationof the time for doing so, et les pidcesdocumentaires whicheveris earlier. utiliser ir I'appui de la demande. DORS/2007-301, art. l2(F). Applicant'srecord 309. (1) An applicantshall, within 20 days 83 aftercompletion of all parties'eross- Affidavits du ddfendeur examinationsor the expirationof the time 3Q7.Dans les 30 jours suivantla for doingso, whichever is earlier, significationdes affidavits du demandeur, le d6fendeursignifie et d6poseles (a) servethe applicant's record; and affidavitset lespidces documentaires qu'il entendutiliser d I'appuide saposition. (b) file DORS/2007-301, art. 12(F). (i) wherethe applicationis brought in theFederal Court, three copies of the applicant'srecord, and Contre-interro gatoires 308.Toute partie qui d6sirecontre- (ii) wherethe applicationis brought interrogerl'auteur d'un affidavit le fait in theFederal Court of Appeal,five dansles 20 jours suivant le ddp6tdes copiesof theapplicant's record. affidavitsdu ddfendeurou dansles 20 jourssuivant l'expiration du d6laiprdvu d cettefin, seloncelui de ces ddlais qui est ant6rieurd I'autre. Contents_ofapplicant's. record (2) An applicant'srecord shall contain, on consecutivelynumbered pages and in the Dossierdu demandeur following order, 3q9.(1) Dans les 20 jours suivant le contre-interrogatoiredes auteurs des (a) atable of contentsgiving the nature affidavitsddposds par lesparties ou dans and date of eachdocument in the record; les20 jours suivant l'expiration du d6lai pr6vupour sa tenue, selon celui de ces (b) the notice of application; d6laisqui estantdrieur d l'autre,le demandeur: (c) any order in respectof which the application is made and any reasons, a) signifieson dossier; including dissentingreasons, given in respectofthat order; b) ddpose:
(d) eachsupporting affidavit and (i) dansle casd'une demande documentaryexhibit; prdsentded la Courf6d6rale, trois copiesde sondossier, (e) the transcript of any cross- examination on affidavits that the (ii) dansle casd'une demande applicant has conducted; prdsentded la Courd'appel f6d6rale,cinq copies de sondossier. (fl the portions of any transcript of oral evidencebefore a tribunal that are to be used by the applicant at the hearing; Contenu du dossierdu demandeur (2)Le du demandeurcontient, sur (g) a description of any physical exhibits dossier pages consdcutivement,les to be used by the applicant at the des numdrotdes 84
hearing; and documentssuivants dans l'ordre indiqu6 ci-aprds: (h) the applicant'smemorandum of fact and law. a) unetable des matidres indiquant la natureet la datede chaquedocument SOR/2004-283,ss. 32, 33;'SOR/2006-2 I 9, vers6au dossier; s. 10. b) I'avisde demande;
Respondent'srecord c) le cas6ch6ant, l'ordonnance qui fait 310. (l) A respondentto an application l'objetde la demandeainsi que les shall, within 20 days after serviceof the motifs,y compristoute dissidence; applicant'srecord, @ lesaffidavits et lespidces (a) servethe respondent'srecord; and documentairesd l'appui de la demande;
(b) file e) lestranscriptions des contre- interrogatoiresqu'il a fait subiraux (i) where the application is brought auteursd'affidavitl in the FederalCourt, three copies of the respondent'srecord, and l) les extraitsde toutetranscription des tdmoignagesoraux recueillis par (ii) where the application is brought l'office f6d6ralqu'il entendutiliser d in the FederalCourt of Appeal, five I'auditionde la demande; copiesof the respondent'srecord. g) unedescription des objets d6pos6s commepidces qu'il entendutiliser d Contentsof respondent'srecord I'audition; (2) The record of a respondentshall contain, on consecutivelynumbered pages and in the ft) un m6moiredes faits et du droit. following order, DORS/2004-283,art.32 et 33; DORS/2006-219,art. 10. (a) atable of contentsgiving the nature and date of eachdocument in the record: Dossierdu d6fendeu{ (b) each supporting affrdavit and 310.(1) Dansles 20 jours aprds avoir regu documentaryexhibit; significationdu dossierdu demandeur,le d6fendeur: (c) the transcriptofany cross- examination on affidavits that the a) signifieson dossier; respondenthas conducted; b) d6pose: (d) the portions of any transcript of oral evidencebefore a tribunal that are to be (i) dansle casd'une demande 85
usedby the respondentat the hearing; pr6sent6ed la Courfed6rale, trois copiesde sondossier, (e) a descriptionof anyphysical exhibits to be usedby the respondentat the (ii) dansle casd'une demande hearing;and prdsent6ed la Courd'appel fed6rale,cinq copies de sondossier. (flthe respondent'smemorandum of fact andlaw.
SOR/2004-283,ss.32, 33. Contenudu dossie{du ddfendeur (2)Le dossierdu ddfendeurcontient, sur despages num6rot6es cons6cutivement, les documentssuivants dans I'ordre indiqu6 Preparationby Registry ci-aprds: 311.(1) On motion,the Court may order the Administratorto preparea recordon a a) unetable des matidres indiquant la party'sbehalf. natureet la datede chaquedocument versdau dossier; Documentsto beprovided (2) A partybringing a motionfor an order b) lesaffidavits et lespidces undersubsection (1) shallprovide the documentairesd l'appui de saposition; Administratorwith the documentsreferred to in subsection309(2) or 310(2),as the c) lestranscriptions des contre- casemay be. interrogatoiresqu'il a fait subiraux auteursd'affidavi|
Additionalsteps 4 lesextraits de toute transcription des 312.With leaveof the Court,a partymay tdmoignagesoraux recueillis par I'officef6ddral qu'il entendutiliser d (a) file affidavitsadditional to those l'auditionde la demande; providedfor in rules306 and307; e) unedescription des objets d6pos6s (b) conductcross-examinations on commepidces qu'il entendutiliser d affidavitsadditional to thoseprovided l'audition; for in rule308; or l) un m6moiredes faits et du droit. (c) file a supplementaryrecord. DORS/2004-283,art.32 et 33.
Requirementto file additional material Prdparationdu dossierpar le greffe 313. Where the Court considersthat the 311.(1) La Courpeut, sur requ6te, application records of the parties are ordonnerd l'administrateurde prdparerle incomplete,the Court may order that other dossierau nom d'une partie. material, including any portion of a transcript,be filed. 86
Requ6te (2)Lapartie qui pr6senteune requCtepour obtenir l'ordonnance vis6e au paragraphe Requisitionfor hearing (1) foumit d l'administrateurles 314. (l) An applicantshall, within 10 days documentsmentionn6s aux paragraphes after serviceof the respondent'srecord or 309(2)ou 310(2),selon le cas. the expirationof the time for doing so, whicheveris earlier,serve and file a requisition,in Form 314, requestingthat a Dossiercompldmentaire date be set for the hearine of the lQ Une partiepeut, avecl'autorisation de application. la Cour :
a) ddposerdes affidavits Contentsof requisition compldmentairesen plus de ceux vis6s (2) A requisitionreferred to in subsection aux rdgles306 et307; (1) shall b) effectuerdes contre-interrogatoires (a) include a statementthat the au sujet des affidavits en plus de ceux requirementsof subsection309(1) have vis6sd la rdgle308; been satisfied and that any notice required under section 57 of the Act has c) d6poserun dossiercompl6mentaire. beengiven;
(b) set out the place at which the hearing Ordonnancede la Cour shouldbe held; 313. Si la Cour estimeque les dossiers des partiessont incomplets,elle peut ordonner (c) set out the maximum number of le ddp6tde documentsou d'6l6ments hours or days required for the hearing; mat6riels suppl6mentaires,y compris toute partiede la transcriptionde tdmoignages ({ list any dateswithin the following 90 qui n'a pas 6t6 d6pos6e. days on which the parties are not availablefor a hearing; Demanded'audience (e) set out the n€une,address, telephone 314.(1) Dansles 10jours aprdsavoir regu numberand fax numberof the solicitor significationdu dossierdu ddfendeurou for every party to the application or, dansles 10jours suivantI'expiration du where a party is not representedby a ddlai de significationde ce dossier,selon solicitor,the person'sname, address, celui de cesddlais qui est ant6rieurd telephonenumber and any fax number; I'autre, le demandeursignifie et d6pose and une demanded'audience, 6tablie selon la formule 314, afin qu'une datesoit fix6e (fl indicate whether the hearing will be pour l'audition de la demande. in English or French,or partly in English and partly in French. Contenu 87
(2) La demanded' audiencecontient les 6l6mentssuivants : Pre-hearingconference 315. The Court may order lhat a conference a) une d6clarationportant que les be held in accordancewith rules 258 to 267, exigencesdu paragraphe309(1) ont 6td with such modifications as are necessary. remplieset que tout avis exigdpar I'article 57 dela Loi a 6t6 donn6; Te$timon)'regarding issue of fact 316. On motion, the Court may, in special b) I'endroit propos6pour I'audition de circumstances,authorize a witness to testi$ la demande; in court in relationto an issueoffact raised in an application. c) le nombremaximal d'heuresou de jours prdvuspour I'audition; Material in the Possessionof a Tribunal fl les datesoir les parties ne sont pas disponiblespour l'audition au cours Material from tribu4al " des90 jours qui suivent; 317. (1) A party may requestmaterial relevant to an application that is in the e) les nom, adresseet numdrosde possessionof a tribunal whoseorder is the t6l6phoneet de t6l6copieurde l'avocat subject of the application and not in the de chaquepartie d la demande,ou ceux possessionof the party by servingon the de la partie dansle casoir elle n'est pas tribunal and filing a written request, repr6sent6epar un avocat; identiffing the material requested.
l) la languedans laquelle l'audition se Requestin notice of application d6roulera,c'est-d-dire en frangaisou en (2) An applicant may include a request anglais, ou en partie en frangaiset en undersubsection (l) in its notice of partie en anglais. application.
Conferencepr6paratoire Serviceofrequest 315. La Cour peut ordonnerla tenued'une (3) If an applicantdoes not includea request conferencepr6paratoire d l'audition d'une undersubsection (1) in its notice of demandeconform6ment aux rdgles 258 iI application, the applicant shall servethe 267, lesqvelless' appliquent avec les requeston the other parties. adaptationsn6cessaires. SORi2002-417,s. 19; SOR/2006-219,s. 11(F). T6moignagesur desquestions de fait f!f. Dans des circonstancesparticulidres, la Cour peut, sur requ0te,autoriser un Material to be transmitted t6moin d tdmoignerir l'audiencequant d (1) 318. Within 20 daysafter serviceof a une question de fait soulev6edans une requestunder rule 3I7, the tribunal shall demande. transmit 88
(a) a certifiedcopy of the requested Obtentionde documentsen la possession material to the Registry and to the party making the request;or d'un office fdddral (b) where the material cannot be reproduced,the original material to the Matdriel en la possessionde I'offrce Registry. f6d6ral 317. (l) Toute partiepeut demanderla transmissiondes documents ou des pertinentsquant d la Objectionbv tribunal 6l6mentsmat6riels qu'elle n'a pasmais qui sont en (2) Wherea tribunalor partyobjects to a demande, la possessionde I'office fdd6raldont requestunder rule 3 17, thetribunal or the fait I'objet de la demande,en partyshall inform all partiesand the I'ordonnance d l'office une requ6ted cet effet Administrator,in writing,of thereasons for signifiant puis la La requ0teprdcise les theobjection. en d6posant. documentsou les 6l6mentsmat6riels demand6s. Directionsas to procedure (3) The Courtmay give directionsto the Demandeinclue dansI'avis demande partiesand to a tribunalas to the procedure de (2) peut inclure sa demande for makingsubmissions with respectto an Un demandeur de documentsdans son objectionunder subsection (2). de transmission avis de demande.
Order Signification de la dem-aJrdede (a) The Court may,after hearing submissionswith respectto an objection transmission (3) le demandeurn'inclut pas sa undersubsection (2), orderthat a certified Si de transmissionde documents copy,or theoriginal, of all or partof the demande avis de demande,il esttenu de materialrequested be forwardedto the dansson cette demandeaux autresparties. Registry. signifier DORSi2002-417,art. 19 ; DORS/2006- 219,art.l l(F).
Assessmentaccording to Tariff B 407. Unlessthe Court ordersotherwise, Documentsd transmettre party-and-partycosts shall be assessedin 3lS. (1) Dansles 20 jours suivantla accordancewith column III of the table to signification de la demandede Tariff B. transmissionvisde d la rdgle317, l'office fdddral transmet : Tariff B - Attached hereto c) au greffe et d la partie qui en afaitla demandeune copie certifi6e conforme desdocuments en cause; 89
b) au greffeles documentsqui ne se prdtentpas d la reproductionet les 6l6mentsmatdriels en cause.
Oppositionde I'offise fed6ral (2) Si I'office f6d6ralou une partie s'opposentd la demandede transmission, ils informent par 6crit toutes les parties et l'administrateurdes motifs de leur opposition. Directivesde la Cour (3) La Cour peut donner aux parties et d l'office f6d6raldes directives sur la fagon de proc6derpour pr6senterdes observationsau sujetd'une oppositiond la demandede transmission.
Ordonnance ()La Cour peut, aprdsavoir entendules observationssur I'opposition,ordonner qu'une copie certifi6econforme ou I'original desdocuments ou que les 6l6mentsmat6riels soient transmis, en totalitd ou en partie, au greffe.
Tarif B 4Q7.Sauf ordonnancecontraire de la Cour, les d6penspartie-partie sont tax6s en conformit6avec la colonneIII du tableau du tarif B.
Tarif B - jointe
Ontario RulesoJ Civil Procedure,O. Reg. Loi sur les tribunauxjudiciaires, Rdgl. de 438108 l'Ont. 438/08 90
To Any Party on a Question of Law A toutesles parties sur une questionde droit 21.01 ... 21.01... To Defendant Au d6fendeur (3) A defendantmay move before a judge to have an action stayedor dismissed (3) Le ddfendeurpeut demanderir on the ground that, un juge, par voie de motion, de surseoirir I'action ou de la rejeterpour l'un des Jurisdiction moyens suivants :
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over Comp6tence the subjectmatter of the action; a) le tribunaln'apas comp6tence Capacity pour connaitrede I'objet de l'action; (b) the plaintiff is without legal capacityto commenceor Capacit6 continue the action or the defendantdoes not have the b) le demandeurn'a pas la capacitd legal capacityto be sued; juridique d'introduire ou de continuerl'action, ou le Another ProceedingPending ddfendeurn'a pas la capacite juridique d'€tre poursuivi; (c) anotherproceeding is pending in Ontario or anotherjurisdiction Autre instance en cours betweenthe sameparties in respectof the samesubject c) une autre instanceest en cours en matter;or Ontario ou dansun autre lieu entreles m6mesParties et d Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of l'6gard du m€meobjet; Process Action frivole ou vexatoire ou proc6dure (d) the action is frivolous or abusive vexatious or is otherwise an abuseof the processof the d) I'action est frivole ou vexatoire court, ou constituepar ailleurs un recours abusif au tribunal. and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly.R.R.O. 1990,Reg. Le juge peut rendre une ordonnanceou un 194,r.21.01(3). jugementen consdquence.R.R.O. 1990, Rdgl.194, par.21.0l (3). 9r
TARIFFB (Rules400 and 407)
COUNSELFEES AND DISBURSEMENTS ALLOWABLE ON ASSESSMENT
TABLE
Numberof Units Ite ColumnColumn Column Column Column m AssessableService ilil| IV A. Oiginatingdocuments and OtherPleadings 1. Preparationand filing of originatingdocuments, other than a noticeof 1 - 3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 appealto theFederal Court of Appeal,and application records. 2. Preparationand filing of alldefences, replies, counterclaims or 1 - 3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 respondents'records and materials. 3. Amendmentof documents,where the amendment is necessitatedby 1 - 2 1-4 2-6 3-7 4-8 a newor amendedoriginating document, pleading, notice or affidavit of anotherparty. B. Motions 4. Preparationand filing of an uncontestedmotion, including all t-z 1-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 materials. 5. Preparationand filing of a contestedmotion, including materials and 1 - 3 2-5 3-7 4-9 5-11 responsesthereto. 6. Appearanceon a motion,per hour. 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 C. Discoveryand Examinations 7. Discoveryof documents,including listing, affidavit and inspection. 1 - 2 1-3 2-5 3-9 5-11 8. Preparationfor an examination,including examinations for discovery, 'l - 2 1-3 2-5 4-8 7-11 on affidavits,and in aidof execution. 9. Attendingon examinations, per hour. 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 D. Pre-Trialand Pre-Hearing Procedures 10. Preparationfor conference,including memorandum. 1 -2 z-3 J-O 4-B 7 -11 11. Attendanceat conference,per hour. 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 'l 12. Noticeto admitfacts or admissionof facts; noticefor productionat 1 1-2 -3 1-4 1-5 hearingor trial or replythereto. 13. Counselfee: (a) preparationlor trial or hearing,whether or not the trial or hearing 1 1-2 2-5 3-9 4-11 proceeds,including correspondence, preparation of witnesses, issuanceof subpoenasand other servicesnot otherwiseparticularized in this Tariff;and (b) preparationfor trial or hearing,per day in Courtafter the first day. 1 I z-J 2-6 3-8 E. Trialor Heaing 14. Counselfee: (a)to firstcounsel, per hour in Court;and 1-2 2-3 2-4 3-5 (b)to secondcounsel, where Court directs, 50% of theamount calculatedunder paragraph (a). 15. Preparationand filing of writtenargument, where requested or 1-3 2-5 3-7 4-9 5-11 permittedby the Court. F. Appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal 16. Counselfee: (a) motionfor leaveto appealand all servicesprior to the hearing 1- 3 2-5 4-7 5.9 7-13 thereof:and (b) on an oral hearingof the motionfor leaveto appeal,per hour. 1 1 1-2 92
Numberof Units Ite ColumnColumn Column Column Column m AssessableService lilllllvv 17. Preparation,filing and service of noticeof appeal. 11 18. Preparationof appealbook. 1-2 1-3 40 Memorandumof factand law. 1-3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 20. Requisitionfor hearing. 11111 2'1.Counselfee: (a)on a motion,including preparation, service and written 1 1-2 2-3 2-4 3-5 representationsor memorandum of factand law; and (b)on theoral hearing of a motion,per hour. t-z 1-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 22. Counselfee on hearingof appeal: (a)to firstcounsel, per hour; and 1 1-2 z-J 2-4 3-5 (b)to secondcounsel, where Court directs, 50% of theamount calculatedunder paragraph (a). G. Miscellaneous 't 't-3 23. Attendanceon a reference,an accountingor otherlike procedure not 1 -2 2-4 2-5 otherwiseprovided for inthis Tariff, per hour. z.+. Travelby counselto attenda trial,hearing, motion, examination or 1 1-3 1-5 1-7 1-9 analogousprocedure, at thediscretion of theCourt. 25. Servicesafter judgment not otherwise specified. 1 1 1 11 't 26. Assessmentof costs. 1-2 -4 2-6 3-7 5-1-0 27, Suchother services as maybe allowedby the assessment officer or 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 orderedby theCourt. 28. Servicesin a provinceby students-at-law,law clerks or paralegalsthat areof a naturethat the law society of thatprovince authorizes them to render,50% of theamount that would be calculatedfor a solicitor. 93
TARIFB (rdgles400 et 407)
HONORAIRESDES AVOCATS ET DEBOURSQUI PEUVENT ETNC ACCEPTES AUX FINS DE
LA TAXATIONDES FR,AIS
TABLEAU
Nombred'unit6s Articl ColonneColonne Colonne Colonne Colonne e Serviced taxer tilllllvv A. Actesintroductifs d'instance et autresacfes de procddure 1. Pr6parationet d6pOtdes actes introductifs d'instance, autres que 1-3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 lesavis d'appel, et des dossiers de demande. 2. Pr6parationet d6potde toutesles d6fenses, r6ponses, 1-3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 demandesreconventionnelles ou dossiers et documentsdes intimes. 3. Modificationdes documents par suite de la presentationpar une 1-2 1-4 2-6 3-7 4-8 autrepartie d'un acte introductif d'instance, d'un acte de procddure,d'un avis ou d'un affidavit, nouveau ou modifi6. B. Requdfes 4. Pr6parationet ddp6td'une requetenon contestee,y compristous 1 - 2 1-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 lesdocuments. 5. Preparationet depOtd'une requ€te contestee, y compris les 1-3 2-5 3-7 4-9 5-11 documentset lesr6ponses s'y rapportant. 'l-4 6. Comparutionlors d'une requ6te, pour chaque heure. 1 1-2 1-3 1-5 C. Communicationde documentset interrogatoires 7. Communicationde documents,y compris l'6tablissement de la 1-2 1-3 2-5 3-9 5-11 liste,l'affidavit et leurexamen. 8. Pr6parationd'un intenogatoire, y compris un intenogatoire t-z 1-3 2-5 4-8 7-11 pr6alableou un interrogatoirerelatif d un affidavitou d I'appui d'uneex6cution forc6e. L Pr6senceaux interrogatoires, pour chaque heure. 0-'l 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 D. Proc6duresprdalables d I'instructionou d I'audience 10. Pr6parationi la conf6rencepr6paratoire, y compris le m6moire 't-2 2-5 3-6 4-8 7-11
11. Pr6sencei la conf6rencepreparatoire, pour chaque heure. I 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 12. Avisdemandant I'admission de faitsou admission de faits; avis 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 de productiond l'instruction ou i I'audienceou r6ponsed cet avts. 13 Honorairesd'avocat : a) pr6parationde I'instructionoude l'audience,qu'elles aient lieu 1 1-2 2-5 3-9 4-11 ou non,y comprisla correspondance,la pr6paration des t6moins, la delivrancede subpoenaet autresservices non specifies dans le presenttarif; b) pr6parationde l'instructionoude I'audience,pour chaque jour 1 2-3 2-6 3-8 de prdsenced la Couraprds le premierjour. E. lnstructionou audience 14. Honorairesd'avocat : a) pourle premieravocat, pour chaque heure de pr6sencei la 1 1-2 2-3 2-4 3-5 Cour; b) pourle secondavocat, lorsque la CourI'ordonne : 50 % du montantcalcu16 selon l'alin6a a). 94
Nombred'unit6s Articl ColonneColonne Colonne Colonne Colonne e ServiceA taxer |illlllv_v 15. Pr6parationetdepOtd'unplaidoyer6crit,irlademandeouavec1-3 2-5 3-7 4-9 5-11 la permissionde la Cour. F. Appelsd la Courd'appel fdd1rale 16. Honorairesd'avocat a) requOteen autorisationd'appeler et tousles services fournis '1-3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 avantl'audltion de la requCte; b) lorsde I'auditiond'une requ6te en autorisationd'appeler, pour 1 1 1 1 1-2 chaoueheure. 17. Pr6paration,d6p6t et significationde l'avisd'appel. 1 1 I 11 18. Pr6parationdu dossierd'appel. 1 1 1 1-2 1-3 19. M6moiredes faits et du droit. 1-3 2-5 4-7 5-9 7-13 4 20. Demanded'audience. I 1 1 11 21. Honorairesd'avocat : a) requ€te,y comprisla preparation,la significationet les 1 1-2 2-3 2-4 3-5 pr6tentions6crites ou le m6moiredes faits et du droit; b) lorsde l'auditionde la requ€te,pour chaque heure. t-z 12 2-4 2-5 2-6 22. Honorairesd'avocat lors de I'auditionde l'appel: a) pourle premieravocat, pour chaque heure; 1 1-2 z- J 2-4 3-5 b) pourle secondavocat, lorsque la CourI'ordonne : 50 % du montantcalcul6 selon l'alin6a a). G. Dlvers 't 'l-3 23. Pr6sencelors d'un renvoi, d'une proc6dure de comptabilit6ou -2 2-4 2-5 d'uneproc6dure du m€megenre non pr6vue au pr6senttarif, pourchaque heure. 24. D6placementde I'avocatpour assister i I'instruction,une 1 1-3 {E 1-7 1-9 audience,une requ€te, un intenogatoireou uneproc6dure analogue,Ala discr6tion de laCour.
I 25. Servicesrendus aprds le jugement et nonmentionnes ailleurs. 1 I 11 26. Taxationdes frais. 1-2 1-4 2-6 3-7 5-10 27. Autresservices accept€s aux fins de lataxation par l'officier 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 taxateurou ordonn6s par la Cour. 28. Servicesfournis par des 6tudiants, des parajuristes ou des stagiairesen droit,dans une province, que le Baneaude cette provinceles autorise d fournir,50 o/o du montantqui serait calcul6 pourles services d'un avocat.