Supreme Court of Canada
Bedford Service Comm’n. v. A.G. (N.S.) et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 269
Date: 1977-03-22
The Bedford Service Commission Appellant;
and
The Attorney General of Nova Scotia and The Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Authority Respondents.
1977: March 22.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA, APPEAL DIVISION
Administrative law—Practice—Class action—Status to sue—Provincial government agencies—Statutory bodies—Status to bring declaratory action—Justiciable nature of issues raised in statement of claim—Bedford Service Commission Act, 1953 (N.S.) c. 73 as amended, ss. 5(c), (f), (h), 25(4).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division reversing a judgment of MacIntosh J. at trial. Appeal allowed, judgment at trial restored.
Kenneth A. Maclnnis, and David Cook, for the appellant.
J.W. Kavanagh, Q.C., and David Giovannetti, for the Attorney General for Nova Scotia.
A.W. Cox, Q.C., and David W. Hooley, for the Halifax Dartmouth Regional Authority.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal must be allowed, the judgment of the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court set aside and the judgment of MacIntosh J. restored. In view of the fact that the proceedings before us originated in an application by the respondents questioning the standing of the plaintiffs, who then included Lacona Heather Cunningham suing in a class action, and that only the joint statement of claim was before the Chambers
[Page 270]
Judge and before the Appeal Division, and that no application had been brought by the respondents to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action, it is our opinion that the Appeal Division could not in effect strike out the statement of claim in an action to which Mrs. Cunningham was still a party when she was not heard because no appeal was taken by the respondents against the order of MacIntosh J. in her favour.
In our view, the allegations in the statement of claim, taking them as established (as we must for the purpose of the present proceedings) do raise justiciable issues, and we are further of the opinion that the appellant Bedford Service Commission, having regard to its powers under s. 5(c)(f)(h) and to its successor position under s. 25(4) of the Bedford Service Commission Act, 1953 (N.S.), c. 73, as amended, has a sufficient interest to challenge the legality of the proposed establishment of a sanitary landfill, by or under the authority or with the approval of the respondents, on a site within the area in which the appellant is empowered to act under its powers and in respect of its functions, and, hence, to assert the claims that it has advanced in the statement of claim.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the Appeal Division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court is set aside and the judgment of MacIntosh J. is restored. The appellant is entitled to its costs throughout.
Appeal allowed with costs, judgment at trial restored.
Solicitors for the appellant: Claman, Dietrich, Clark, Bright & Maclnnis, Halifax.
Solicitor for the respondent, The Attorney General of Nova Scotia: J.W. Kavanagh, Halifax.
Solicitor for the respondent, the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Authority: A. William Cox, Halifax.
Email this Content