Date:
20090811
Docket: A-610-08
Citation:
2009 FCA 241
CORAM: NADON
J.A.
BLAIS
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Canada
Appellant
and
ROLAND ANGLEHART SR., ROLAND ANGLEHART JR., BERNARD ARSENEAULT,
HÉLIODORE
AUCOIN, ALBERT BENOÎT, ROBERT BOUCHER, ELIDE BULGER,
GÉRARD
CASSIVI, JEAN-GILLES CHIASSON, LUDGER CHIASSON, MARTIN M. CHIASSON, RÉMI
CHIASSON, CIE 2973-0819 QUÉBEC INC., CIE 2973-1288 QUÉBEC INC., CIE 3087-5199
QUÉBEC INC., ROBERT COLLIN, ROMÉO G. CORMIER, MARC COUTURE, LES CRUSTACÉES DE
GASPÉ LTÉE, LINO DESBOIS, RANDY DEVEAU, CAROL DUGUAY, CHARLES-AIMÉ DUGUAY,
DENIS DUGUAY, DONALD DUGUAY, MARIUS DUGUAY, EDGAR FERRON, ARMAND FISET, LIVAIN
FOULEM, CLAUDE GIONEST, JOCELYN GIONET, SIMON J. GIONET, AURÈLE GODIN, VALOIS
GOUPIL, AURÉLIEN HACHÉ, DONALD R. HACHÉ, GAËTAN HACHÉ, GUY HACHÉ, JACQUES E.
HACHÉ, JASON-SYLVAIN HACHÉ, JEAN-PIERRE HACHÉ, JACQUES A. HACHÉ, RENÉ HACHÉ,
RHÉAL HACHÉ, ROBERT F. HACHÉ, ALBAN HAUTCOEUR, FERNAND HAUTCOEUR, JEAN‑CLAUDE
HAUTCOEUR, GREGG HINKLEY, JEAN-PIERRE HUARD, RÉJEAN LEBLANC,CHRISTIAN LELIÈVRE,
ELPHÈGE LELIÈVRE, JEAN-ELIE LELIÈVRE, JULES LELIÈVRE, DASSISE MALLET, DELPHIS
MALLET, FRANCIS MALLET, JEAN-MARC MARCOUX, ANDRÉ MAZEROLLE, EDDY MAZEROLLE,
GILLES A. NOËL, LÉVIS NOËL, MARTIN NOËL, NICOLAS NOËL, ONÉSIME NOËL, RAYMOND
NOËL, FRANCIS PARISÉ, DOMITIEN PAULIN, SYLVAIN PAULIN, PÊCHERIES DENISE QUINN
SYVRAIS INC., PÊCHERIES FRANÇOIS INC., PÊCHERIES JEAN-YAN II INC., PÊCHERIES
JIMMY L. LTÉE, PÊCHERIES J.V.L. LTÉE, PÊCHERIES RAY-L INC., LES PÊCHERIES
SERGE-LUC INC., ROGER PINEL, CLAUDE POIRIER, PRODUITS BELLE BAIE LTÉE, ADRIEN
ROUSSEL, JEAN-CAMILLE ROUSSEL, MATHIAS ROUSSEL, STEVEN ROUSSY, MARIO SAVOIE, ESTATE
OF JEAN-PIERRE ROBICHAUD, ESTATE OF LUCIEN CHIASSON, ESTATE OF SYLVA HACHÉ,
JEAN-MARC SWEENEY, MICHEL TURBIDE, RÉAL TURBIDE, DONAT VIENNEAU, FERNAND
VIENNEAU, LIVAIN VIENNEAU, RHÉAL VIENNEAU
Respondents
Hearing held at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on June 10, 2009
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 11, 2009.
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT BY: BLAIS
J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NADON
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20090811
Docket: A-610-08
Citation:
2009 FCA 241
CORAM: NADON J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Canada
Appellant
and
ROLAND
ANGLEHART SR., ROLAND ANGLEHART JR., BERNARD ARSENEAULT,
HÉLIODORE
AUCOIN, ALBERT BENOÎT, ROBERT BOUCHER, ELIDE BULGER,
GÉRARD
CASSIVI, JEAN-GILLES CHIASSON, LUDGER CHIASSON, MARTIN M. CHIASSON, RÉMI
CHIASSON, CIE 2973-0819 QUÉBEC INC., CIE 2973-1288 QUÉBEC INC., CIE 3087-5199
QUÉBEC INC., ROBERT COLLIN, ROMÉO G. CORMIER, MARC COUTURE, LES CRUSTACÉES DE
GASPÉ LTÉE, LINO DESBOIS, RANDY DEVEAU, CAROL DUGUAY, CHARLES-AIMÉ DUGUAY,
DENIS DUGUAY, DONALD DUGUAY, MARIUS DUGUAY, EDGAR FERRON, ARMAND FISET, LIVAIN
FOULEM, CLAUDE GIONEST, JOCELYN GIONET, SIMON J. GIONET, AURÈLE GODIN, VALOIS
GOUPIL, AURÉLIEN HACHÉ, DONALD R. HACHÉ, GAËTAN HACHÉ, GUY HACHÉ, JACQUES E.
HACHÉ, JASON-SYLVAIN HACHÉ, JEAN-PIERRE HACHÉ, JACQUES A. HACHÉ, RENÉ HACHÉ, RHÉAL
HACHÉ, ROBERT F. HACHÉ, ALBAN HAUTCOEUR, FERNAND HAUTCOEUR, JEAN‑CLAUDE
HAUTCOEUR, GREGG HINKLEY, JEAN-PIERRE HUARD, RÉJEAN LEBLANC,CHRISTIAN LELIÈVRE,
ELPHÈGE LELIÈVRE, JEAN-ELIE LELIÈVRE, JULES LELIÈVRE, DASSISE MALLET, DELPHIS
MALLET, FRANCIS MALLET, JEAN-MARC MARCOUX, ANDRÉ MAZEROLLE, EDDY MAZEROLLE,
GILLES A. NOËL, LÉVIS NOËL, MARTIN NOËL, NICOLAS NOËL, ONÉSIME NOËL, RAYMOND
NOËL, FRANCIS PARISÉ, DOMITIEN PAULIN, SYLVAIN PAULIN, PÊCHERIES DENISE QUINN
SYVRAIS INC., PÊCHERIES FRANÇOIS INC., PÊCHERIES JEAN-YAN II INC., PÊCHERIES
JIMMY L. LTÉE, PÊCHERIES J.V.L. LTÉE, PÊCHERIES RAY-L INC., LES PÊCHERIES
SERGE-LUC INC., ROGER PINEL, CLAUDE POIRIER, PRODUITS BELLE BAIE LTÉE, ADRIEN
ROUSSEL, JEAN-CAMILLE ROUSSEL, MATHIAS ROUSSEL, STEVEN ROUSSY, MARIO SAVOIE,
ESTATE OF JEAN-PIERRE ROBICHAUD, ESTATE OF LUCIEN CHIASSON, ESTATE OF SYLVA
HACHÉ, JEAN-MARC SWEENEY, MICHEL TURBIDE, RÉAL TURBIDE, DONAT VIENNEAU, FERNAND
VIENNEAU, LIVAIN VIENNEAU, RHÉAL VIENNEAU
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BLAIS J.A.
[1]
This is an appeal of a decision of Justice Frenette
(judge) of the Federal Court dated November 28, 2008.
[2]
Relying on the decision of Justice Martineau
in Arsenault et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 FC 299, (also
on appeal to this Court), the judge dismissed the Attorney General of Canada’s application
to strike an amended statement of claim and dismiss an action in damages, or,
in the alternative, to obtain an order staying proceedings pending a decision on
the merits of an application for judicial review that the respondents may file.
[3]
The appellant’s motion to strike is based on
Rule 221(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (Rules).
221. (1) On
motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything
contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the
ground that it
(a)
discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b)
is immaterial or redundant,
(c)
is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d)
may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e)
constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f)
is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
and
may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.
|
221. À tout moment, la Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner la radiation de
tout ou partie d’un acte de procédure, avec ou sans autorisation de le
modifier, au motif, selon le cas:
a)
qu’il ne révèle aucune cause d’action ou de défense valable;
b)
qu’il n’est pas pertinent ou qu’il est redondant;
c)
qu’il est scandaleux, frivole ou vexatoire;
d)
qu’il risque de nuire à l’instruction équitable de l’action ou de la
retarder;
e)
qu’il diverge d’un acte de procédure antérieur;
f)
qu’il constitue autrement un abus de procédure.
Elle
peut aussi ordonner que l’action soit rejetée ou qu’un jugement soit
enregistré en conséquence.
|
[4]
For his motion to be allowed, the appellant had
to show that it was “plain and obvious” that the plaintiffs’ action had no
chance of success, based on the case law established by the Supreme Court of
Canada in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959.
[5]
The judge reviewed the pleadings and concluded
that it was not “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” that the allegations in the
statement of claim supported the conclusion that the action should be
dismissed.
[6]
Reproduced below are the causes of action listed
by the judge in his judgment at paragraph 2:
[translation]
A. breach
of various contractual agreements concluded with the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans (the Minister) regarding the crab fishery in Eastern Canada;
B. breach
of a duty of care in the manner in which the portion of the total allowable
catch (the TAC) quota allocated to the plaintiffs was reduced as of 2003;
C. commission of a tort
or misfeasance in public office;
D. exercise
of the Minister’s management authority in a manner that was abusive, capricious
or in bad faith;
E. expropriation
without compensation of certain rights of the plaintiffs through the reduction
of their TAC portion;
F. false representations
by the Minister;
G. unjust
enrichment by the Minister in using the plaintiffs’ portion of the TAC to allocate
to other groups of fishers or to finance his own activities;
H. breach of a fiduciary duty.
[7]
The appellant submits that the Federal Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter under section 17 of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑7 (Act) because the respondents
should have proceeded first by way of judicial review under section 18 of
the Act to have the Minister’s decision invalidated (Canada v. Grenier, 2005
FCA 348, (Grenier) and Canada v. Tremblay, 2004 FCA 172).
[8]
The appellant also argues that the decisions concerned
in the application were not the subject of such a judicial review and that the
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the action.
[9]
The respondents take issue with this argument, stating
that some of the Minister’s decisions have already been the subject of judicial
review and found to be unlawful (see Larocque v. Canada (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans), 2006 FCA 237 and Association des crabiers
acadiens v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1242).
[10]
The respondents contend that they are not
challenging the lawfulness of the Minister’s decisions but, rather, their legitimacy
and the commission of concurrent wrongful acts in the exercise of ministerial
powers, which fall under the Court’s jurisdiction under section 17 of the
Act.
[11]
The appellant submits that, despite the allegations
of breach of contract, expropriation without compensation, negligence in the exercise
of discretion, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of a fiduciary
duty, the actual subject of the respondents’ proceeding is the validity of the discretionary
administrative decisions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Minister). In
particular, the appellant argues that at the heart of the respondents’ claim
are the decisions setting the crab quota allocations.
[12]
This Court has already recognized that a
presumably lawful decision may give rise to liability through an action in
damages (see Canada v. Manuge, 2009 FCA 29 at paragraph 58):
[58] It is possible that a
perfectly lawful administrative decision or activity may be carried out in a
negligent or abusive manner, thus giving rise to liability on the part of the
federal administration. In other words, even though a decision or an activity
is lawful, its execution may be negligent or wrongful. In such a case, bringing
an action in liability based not on the lawfulness of the decision or activity,
but on its negligent performance, is appropriate.
[13]
The respondents expressly state at paragraphs 61
and following of their memorandum that [translation]
“their proceeding is not based on the unlawfulness of the Minister’s decisions”.
The appellant will surely keep this submission in mind and call it to the trial
judge’s attention, if need be. The same can be said for applying the principles
established in Grenier; the trial judge will be better able to consider
this issue.
[14]
The appellant has not satisfied us that the
respondents’ action is bereft of any chance of success.
[15]
The appellant failed to satisfy us that this
Court’s intervention is warranted in this case.
[16]
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Pierre Blais”
“I agree.
M. Nadon J.A.”
“I agree.
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
Certified true
translation
Tu-Quynh Trinh
Email this Content