Date: 200011l4
Docket: A-455-99
(T-733-99)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
B E T W E E N:
IAN VERNER MACDONALD
Appellant (Plaintiff)
-- and --
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES HARNICK
WILLIAM MALCOLM BISHOP
TERRANCE STERLING BISHOP
MICHAEL CHINKIWSKY
S. BERGAU
Respondents (Defendants)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario on Thursday, November 9, 2000
JUDGMENT delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday, November 14, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
Date: 200011l4
Docket: A-455-99
(T-733-99)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
B E T W E E N:
IAN VERNER MACDONALD
Appellant (Plaintiff)
-- and --
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES HARNICK
WILLIAM MALCOLM BISHOP
TERRANCE STERLING BISHOP
MICHAEL CHINKIWSKY
S. BERGAU
Respondents (Defendants)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
STRAYER J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from an order of Lemieux J. of the Federal Court Trial Division striking out a statement of claim and dismissing the appellant's action commenced in that Court.
[2] The action concerned private property in the province of Ontario of which the appellant was once the owner. In essence, the appellant alleged that he had lost the land through an improper foreclosure which was approved by the Ontario Court (General Division). He sought damages or the return of the land, plus interest. As will be noted from the style of cause, the defendants to the action, now the respondents, include the Crown in Right of Ontario, the Attorney General of Ontario, a local registrar of the Ontario Court (General Division), a lawyer, and two private individuals involved in the land transactions. They moved to strike the action on the basis that the Federal Court Trial Division had no jurisdiction in the matter.
[3] Lemieux J. referred to the standard authorities, including ITO International Terminal Operators Limited v. Miida Electronics Inc.,1 with respect to determining whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction in any given matter. He correctly found there was no statutory grant of jurisdiction in the Federal Court with respect to land transactions in Ontario, nor with respect to actions or judicial review concerning provincial authorities; and that there is no existing federal law involved in this dispute.
[4] Before us the appellant did not really address the ITO tests but essentially argued that his rights to property and a livelihood were protected by the Charter and such rights had been violated. In his view any court in Canada should be able to vindicate Charter rights. However the matter is not that simple. It is of course necessary for a court first to be properly seized of the subject-matter in relation to which a Charter issue is raised. The Federal Court, being created by Parliament under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867, "for the better administration of the laws of Canada", is restricted by the Constitution to dealing with federal laws and institutions. In doing so it may, where appropriate, enforce Charter requirements..
[5] The appellant did not in his statement of claim allege any Charter violations, nor did he implead any federal institution or invoke any federal law. The learned motions judge quite correctly struck out the statement of claim and dismissed the action and this appeal should therefore be dismissed with costs for each respondent, or group of respondents, represented by separate counsel.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
I agree
Marshall Rothstein
I agree
Brian Malone J.A.
__________________
1 [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752.
Email this Content