Cormier v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), docket T-2288-96

     Date: 19980403

     Docket: T-2288-96

B E T W E E N:

     FERNAND CORMIER

     Applicant

     - and -

     MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS OF CANADA

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered from the bench at Fredericton, N.B.

     on Wednesday, April 1, 1998)

HUGESSEN J.

     [1]      This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dated September 17, 1996. The gist of the decision is found in the following two paragraphs:

---

[TRANSLATION] In previous letters, we indicated that Mr. Cormier"s application could not be reassessed without solid evidence of crab landings during the qualifying period, namely between 1970 and 1974. No such evidence has been provided to date in response to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans" repeated requests to this effect.

Given that over twenty years have passed since the period in question, the time has come to put an end to this situation. Consequently, please inform your client, Fernand Cormier, that he will not be issued a snow crab licence under the policy relating to the 1970-1974 qualifying period.

(Applicant"s record, page 21)

     [2]      It can be seen from the above text that this was the last in a series of decisions by the Minister. In 1989, Mr. Cormier had obtained a favourable recommendation from an appeal body created by the Minister, namely the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board.

     [3]      However, the Minister did not follow the Board"s recommendation, and in a detailed letter dated October 31, 1990, he refused to issue the licence in question and explained why.

     [4]      This was followed by a whole series of requests by the applicant that the Minister reassess or reconsider his 1990 decision. I count at least five of them from the period between 1990 and 1996. The decision at issue before me is the response to the latest of those requests.

     [5]      With respect, it seems clear to me that this application for judicial review must fail.

     [6]      First, it is clear that the 1990 decision can no longer be challenged in this Court. The time for doing so expired long ago. Asking for the decision to be reassessed does not automatically extend the period set by the Act. The rule ensuring the certainty of administrative decisions requires that the 1990 decision, whether good or bad, remain in effect and no longer be open to judicial review.

     [7]      Second, even were I to accept that the Minister has the power to reassess or reconsider his own administrative decisions, there is in my view nothing in the instant case which would allow me to quash the impugned decision of September 17, 1996.

     [8]      The power conferred on the Minister by section 7 of the Act¹ is very broad. No doubt this provision gives him the authority to review his own decisions. However, if the Minister wishes to avoid arbitrariness, he must observe the rules of natural justice even when exercising his discretionary power of review. In the case at bar, the fact that the Minister required new evidence or new submissions before agreeing to reopen the case is certainly a legitimate and lawful requirement that is fully consistent with natural justice. It is established in the instant case that nothing new was submitted to the Minister between the date of the decision in 1990 and the date of the decision being challenged here today. Therefore, the 1996 decision is likewise unassailable under the circumstances.

     [9]      I will accordingly dismiss the application for judicial review.

     James K. Hugessen

     Judge

Certified true translation

Peter Douglas

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NO.:                  T-2288-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:              Fernand Cormier v. Minister of Fisheries and

                         Oceans of Canada

PLACE OF HEARING:              Fredericton, New Brunswick

DATE OF HEARING:              April 1, 1998

REASONS FOR ORDER

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen

DATED:                      April 3, 1998

APPEARANCES:

Basile Chiasson                  for the applicant

Rosemarie Millar                  for the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Chiasson & Roy

Bathurst, New Brunswick              for the applicant

George Thomson

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario                  for the respondent

__________________

¹ Fisheries Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14:

7.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, wherever the exclusive right of fishing does not already exist by law, issue or authorize to be issued leases and licences for fisheries or fishing, wherever situated or carried on.

7.(1) En l'absence d'exclusivité du droit de pêche conférée par la loi, le ministre peut, à discrétion, octroyer des baux et permis de pêche ainsi que des licences d'exploitation de pêcheries - ou en permettre l'octroi -, indépendamment du lieu de l'exploitation ou de l'activité de pêche.