Date: 20011019
Docket: A-813-99
Ottawa, Ontario, October 19, 2001
Coram: Desjardins
Décary
Noël, JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CHARLES ST-ONGE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed without costs.
"Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20011019
Docket: A-813-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCA 308
CORAM: DESJARDINS
DÉCARY
NOËL, JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CHARLES ST-ONGE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held in Ottawa, Ontario, October 17, 2001.
Judgment rendered in Ottawa, Ontario, October 19, 2001.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NOËL J.A.
CONCURRING: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20011019
Docket: A-813-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCA 308
CORAM: DESJARDINS
DÉCARY
NOËL, JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CHARLES ST-ONGE
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NOËL J.A.
[1] In my opinion, the trial judge was correct in ruling that the appellant's action is out of time.
[2] Section 45(1)(g) of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15 is an enactment of general application that applies to any civil liability action, irrespective of whether it is based on a violation of Charter rights. The six-year limitation period in the Act is immune to the controversy surrounding the constitutional validity of short limitation periods when they preclude the exercise of a Charter right (Gauthier v. Lambert, [1985] C.S. 927, upheld [1998] R.D.J. 14 (Que. C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed by the S.C.C., May 26, 1988 [sic]; Nagy v. Phillips (1996), 137 D.L.R. (4th) 715 (Alta. C.A.); Prete v. Ontario (1983), 16 O.R. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed by the S.C.C., April 28, 1994).
[3] I am also of opinion that the trial judge was justified in holding that the cause of action arose no later than March 13, 1984, when the Canada Employment Centre (CEC) communicated to the appellant its decision that it would no longer provide its services to him, and that the CEC's subsequent refusals to provide its services are simply a product of the application in time of that decision (compare Hobson v. Canada, [1998] O.J. No. 2793 (Gen. Div.) (Q.L.) and the decisions cited in paragraph 54 of that decision). Furthermore, the appellant acknowledges in paragraph 21 of his amended statement of claim in regard to a refusal experienced in 1987 that the "real problem" was that he had never had equal access to the programs and services in French (Appeal Book, volume I, page 100).
[4] Finally, the trial judge was right to exclude the argument that the action was not out of time because it was not until 1996 that the appellant learned of some essential evidence. This lack of evidence did not prevent the appellant from commencing his action in 1990, nor would it have prevented the appellant from commencing his action when he learned of the tortious action he alleges, in March 1984.
[5] I would dismiss the appeal, therefore. Since the respondent has not asked for costs, I would not award any.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
"I subscribe to these reasons.
Alice Desjardins J.A."
"I agree.
Robert Décary J.A."
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE NO: A-813-99
STYLE: Jean-Charles St-Onge v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 17, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY MR. JUSTICE NOËL
CONCURRING: Madam Justice Desjardins
Mr. Justice Décary
DATED: October 19, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Jean-Charles St-Onge FOR HIMSELF
Marie-Josée Montreuil FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean-Charles St-Onge FOR HIMSELF
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content