Coulombe v. Canada, docket T-1131-97

     Date: 20000726

     Docket: T-1131-97

BETWEEN:

     JEAN COULOMBE

     Plaintiff

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

     Defendant

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

HUGESSEN J.

[1]      By his action brought in May 1997 the plaintiff is claiming damages which he alleges he suffered as a result of alleged wrongs committed by the defendant's employees. He claims to have been injured by the illegal imposition of administrative penalties in September and October 1993 and March 1994 when his fishing licence was issued. The legality of certain administrative decisions of the same type had been challenged by a colleague of the plaintiff, Mr. Duguay, the latter won his case both at trial and on appeal and the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in April 2000.

[2]      The plaintiff, for his part, never challenged the administrative decisions made regarding him in courts of law. He simply awaited the outcome of the judicial review proceedings brought by Mr. Duguay. He also did not assert his claim for damages in the courts prior to May 1997.

[3]      By her motion for summary judgment the defendant asked that the action be dismissed for prescription. It seems clear that the motion is valid.

[4]      As the entire cause of action arose in Quebec, it is the law of that province that must be applied to questions of prescription. The action is to enforce a personal right and art. 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec lays down a three-year prescription period for this type of claim. As the latest alleged offence, the administrative decision imposing penalties, was committed in March 1994 the action is prima facie prescribed.

[5]      The plaintiff maintained that the prescription was interrupted by an exchange of correspondence between himself and the defendant's employees. This argument does not stand up to examination. Nowhere in that correspondence is there the slightest recognition of a debt or a waiver of the established prescription. On the contrary, the plaintiff was simply asked to present his claims in the courts, which he failed to do at the proper time.

[6]      The plaintiff was never a party to the application for judicial review brought by Mr. Duguay. The judgment obtained by the latter can confer no right on him.

[7]      The action must accordingly be dismissed.

     ORDER

The motion for a summary judgment is allowed and the action is dismissed with costs.

Ottawa, Ontario

July 26, 2000

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: HUGESSEN J.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario