Date:
20061222
Docket: A-381-06
Citation: 2006 FCA
424
Present: MADAM JUSTICE DESJARDINS
BETWEEN:
Aurélien Haché, Lucien Chiasson, Sylvie
Chiasson, Armand Fiset, Jeannot Guignard,
Héliodore Aucoin, Gildard Haché, Guy
Haché, Rhéal Haché, Robert F. Haché, Greg
Hinkley, Vincent Jones, Solange
Lanteigne, Jean-Pierre LeBouthillier, Rhéal H. Mallet,
André Mazerolle, Eddy Mazerolle, Albanie
Noël, Alphée Noël, Serge C. Noël, Gilles
Noël, Joseph A. Noël, Lévi Noël, Lorenzo
Noël, Martin Noël, Mathurin Noël, Nicolas
Noël, Onésime Noël, Paul Noël, Raymond
Noël, Renald Noël, Robert Ross, Bruno
Roussel, Jean-Camille Noël, Valmi
Roussel, Donat Vienneau, Fernand Vienneau, Rhéal
Vienneau, Mathias Roussel, Serge
Blanchard, Robert Boucher, Elide Bulger, Jean-Gilles
Chiason, Roméo G. Cormier, Bernard
Duguay, Thomas Duguay, Donald Duguay, Edgar
Ferron, Wilbert Godin, Aurèle Godin,
Valois Goupil, Euclide Guignard, Florent
Guignard, Jacques E. Haché, Jean-Pierre
Haché, Robert G. Haché, Donald R. Haché,
Ulysse Haché, Gaëtan H. Haché, Gabriel
Jean, Jean-Victor Larocque, Dassisse Mallet,
Delphis Mallet, Albert A. Noël, Gilles A.
Noël, Domitien Paulin, Sylvain Paulin, Alma
Robichaud, administratrice de la
Succession de Jean-Pierre Robichaud, Sylva Haché,
Mario Savoie, Les Pêcheries Jimmy L.
Ltée, Eric Gionet, administrateur de la fiducie
Allain O. Gionet, Les Produits Belle-Baie
Ltée., Oliva Roussel, E. Gagnon et Fils Ltée.,
Bernard Arsenault, Gérard Cassivi,
Jacques Collin, Raymond Collin, Robert Collin,
Marc Couture, Les Crustacées de Gaspé
Ltée., CIE 2973-1288 Québec Inc., CIE 2973-
0819 Québec Inc., Bruno Duguay,
Charles-Aimé Duguay, Alban Hautcoeur, Fernand
Hautcoeur, Jean-Claude Hautcoeur, Robert
Huard, Christian Lelièvre, Elphège Lelièvre,
Jean-Élie Lelièvre, Jules Lelièvre, Jean-Marc
Marcoux, Douglas McInnis, Roger Pinel, Jean Marc Sweeney, Michel Turbide, Réal
Turbide, Pêcheries Denise Quinn Syvrais Inc.,
Steven Roussy, Geneviève Allain, Francis
Parisé, Martial LeBlanc, Daniel Desbois,
Rolland Anglehart, Jacques Langis,
Jean-Pierre Huard, Claude Gionet, Carol Duguay,
Denis Duguay, Paul Chevarie, Thérèse
Vigneau, administratrice de la Succession de
Benoît Poirier, Denis Éloquin, Claude
Poirier, Henry-Fred Poirier, Robert Thériault,
Raynald Vigneau
Appellants
Moving Parties in the Motion
and
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
as represented by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of
Human Resources Development Canada,
Respondent
Respondent in the Motion
Motion in
writing decided without appearance of the parties.
Order rendered at Ottawa, Ontario
on December 22, 2006.
REASONS FOR
ORDER: DESJARDINS
J.A.
Date:
20061222
Docket: A-381-06
Citation: 2006 FCA 424
Present: MADAM
JUSTICE DESJARDINS
BETWEEN:
Aurélien Haché, Lucien Chiasson, Sylvie
Chiasson, Armand Fiset, Jeannot Guignard,
Héliodore Aucoin, Gildard Haché, Guy
Haché, Rhéal Haché, Robert F. Haché, Greg
Hinkley, Vincent Jones, Solange
Lanteigne, Jean-Pierre LeBouthillier, Rhéal H. Mallet,
André Mazerolle, Eddy Mazerolle, Albanie
Noël, Alphée Noël, Serge C. Noël, Gilles
Noël, Joseph A. Noël, Lévi Noël, Lorenzo
Noël, Martin Noël, Mathurin Noël, Nicolas
Noël, Onésime Noël, Paul Noël, Raymond
Noël, Renald Noël, Robert Ross, Bruno
Roussel, Jean-Camille Noël, Valmi
Roussel, Donat Vienneau, Fernand Vienneau, Rhéal
Vienneau, Mathias Roussel, Serge
Blanchard, Robert Boucher, Elide Bulger, Jean-Gilles
Chiason, Roméo G. Cormier, Bernard
Duguay, Thomas Duguay, Donald Duguay, Edgar
Ferron, Wilbert Godin, Aurèle Godin,
Valois Goupil, Euclide Guignard, Florent
Guignard, Jacques E. Haché, Jean-Pierre
Haché, Robert G. Haché, Donald R. Haché,
Ulysse Haché, Gaëtan H. Haché, Gabriel
Jean, Jean-Victor Larocque, Dassisse Mallet,
Delphis Mallet, Albert A. Noël, Gilles A.
Noël, Domitien Paulin, Sylvain Paulin, Alma
Robichaud, administratrice de la
Succession de Jean-Pierre Robichaud, Sylva Haché,
Mario Savoie, Les Pêcheries Jimmy L.
Ltée, Eric Gionet, administrateur de la fiducie
Allain O. Gionet, Les Produits Belle-Baie
Ltée., Oliva Roussel, E. Gagnon et Fils Ltée.,
Bernard Arsenault, Gérard Cassivi,
Jacques Collin, Raymond Collin, Robert Collin,
Marc Couture, Les Crustacées de Gaspé
Ltée., CIE 2973-1288 Québec Inc., CIE 2973-
0819 Québec Inc., Bruno Duguay,
Charles-Aimé Duguay, Alban Hautcoeur, Fernand
Hautcoeur, Jean-Claude Hautcoeur, Robert
Huard, Christian Lelièvre, Elphège Lelièvre,
Jean-Élie Lelièvre, Jules Lelièvre,
Jean-Marc Marcoux, Douglas McInnis, Roger Pinel, Jean Marc Sweeney, Michel
Turbide, Réal Turbide, Pêcheries Denise Quinn Syvrais Inc.,
Steven Roussy, Geneviève Allain, Francis
Parisé, Martial LeBlanc, Daniel Desbois,
Rolland Anglehart, Jacques Langis,
Jean-Pierre Huard, Claude Gionet, Carol Duguay,
Denis Duguay, Paul Chevarie, Thérèse
Vigneau, administratrice de la Succession de
Benoît Poirier, Denis Éloquin, Claude
Poirier, Henry-Fred Poirier, Robert Thériault,
Raynald Vigneau
Appellants
Moving Parties in the Motion
and
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
as represented by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of
Human Resources Development Canada,
Respondent
Respondent in the Motion
REASONS FOR ORDER
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1]
This
is a motion by the appellants (moving parties) to obtain a stay of execution in
respect of Mr. Justice de Montigny’s order for costs dated August 1, 2006 in
docket T-2263-01 as well as a stay of the appeal from that order until such
time as there is a ruling in the appeal on the main action. The moving parties
are also seeking an extension of the deadline to file the agreement between the
parties as to the content of the appeal docket.
[2]
The
moving parties submit that the Court should issue an order staying the costs
order, and stay the appeal therefrom, on the basis that the three stages of the
test in R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R.
311 have been met. To permit the enforcement of costs and hear the appeal on
costs would result, in their view, in a waste of court resources and prevent
the moving parties from being adequately represented in the appeal of the main
action.
[3]
The
respondent maintains that a stay of the order should not be granted because the
moving parties have not provided any evidence of irreparable harm. However, the
respondent consents to a stay of the appeal on costs.
ANALYSIS
(i)
Should
the Court stay the order for costs?
[4]
The
power of a judge to stay an order for costs in accordance with Rule 398 is
discretionary: see, for example, Trojan Technologies Inc. v. Suntec
Environmental Inc., 2003 F.C.A. 309 at paragraph 10. The decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in R.J.R. MacDonald instructs us that granting a
motion for a stay depends on three criteria: (1) the existence of a serious
question to be tried; (2) irreparable harm; and (3) the balance of
inconvenience.
[5]
The
moving parties submit that the appeal in the main action raises serious
questions, including the violation of the rules of natural justice and
procedural fairness. According to the respondent, the grounds for appeal in the
main action constitute unfounded conjecture.
[6]
In R.J.R.
MacDonald, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the guidelines for
ascertaining the existence of a serious question to be tried. The Court teaches
us, in paragraph 50, that the threshold is low for this preliminary requirement
and that once the judge hearing the case determines that the application is
neither frivolous nor vexatious, the analysis should advance to the second and
third stages.
[7]
Given
the nature of the question raised and the fact that the threshold is low for
this requirement, I find that the first stage of the test is met.
[8]
The
moving parties submit that enforcing costs could exhaust their resources, which
would infringe their right to proper representation for the appeal on the main
action. The respondent replies that the moving parties have adduced no evidence
indicating that enforcement of costs will exhaust their resources. In any case,
says the respondent, it is the moving parties who have, by their actions,
squandered resources.
[9]
"Irreparable" refers to the nature of the harm suffered
rather than its magnitude. It is harm which either cannot be quantified in
monetary terms or which cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot
collect damages from the other:
R.J.R. MacDonald, supra, at paragraph 59. Harm is not irreparable
if it can be cured on appeal, which is usually the case for monetary harm.
[10]
The
moving parties describe the harm they are likely to suffer as being more than
mere monetary harm. They contend that their right to present their case on
appeal would be infringed.
[11]
The
moving parties must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the harm
they would suffer is irreparable: Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc., 2006 FCA
167 at paragraph 12. Mere assertions do not suffice. Irreparable harm cannot be
inferred. It must be established by clear and compelling evidence: A.
Lassonde Inc. v. Island Oasis Canada Inc., [2001] 2 F.C. 568 at
paragraph 20.
[12]
In
the case at bar, the moving parties have not demonstrated that the viability of
their business was in jeopardy or that they did not have the necessary
resources to ensure adequate representation on appeal in the main action.
[13]
The
moving parties have the burden of proving each of the three stages of the test.
Since they have not succeeded on the second stage, there is no reason to
consider the third. As explained by this Court in Friends of the West
Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1998] F.C.J. no. 1690
at paragraphs 4-6:
It is clear from R.J.R. MacDonald
that the appellants have the onus of proof of each element of the test laid
down in that case.
Although the appellants led
evidence to prove each element of the test, I am of the opinion that this
evidence falls short of showing to the requisite degree that the appellants
will suffer irreparable harm as explained in R.J.R. MacDonald (…) Since the onus on the
appellants extends to each element of the test, a failure to prove any one of
them is fatal to the success of the motion.
[my emphasis]
[14]
As
Sharlow J.A. explains in Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2004
FCA 161 at paragraph 10, insufficient evidence of irreparable harm is a
sufficient ground for denying a motion.
(ii)
Should the Court stay the appeal of the order for costs?
[15]
The
three-stage test in R.J.R. MacDonald applies equally to a stay of
proceedings. Although I have concluded, as indicated above, that the moving
parties have not met their evidentiary burden with respect to irreparable harm,
I am of the opinion that the Court should stay the appeal on costs until the
appeal on the main action has been decided. The respondent consents to the
moving parties’ application for a stay of proceedings.
(iii) Should the Court extend the time
periods provided in Rule 343 of the Federal Court Rules?
[16]
Rule
8(1) of the Federal Court Rules, S.O.R./98-106, grants the Court
discretion to extend a period. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly,
[1999] F.C.J. no. 846 at paragraph 3, the Federal Court of Appeal set out the
four criteria that an applicant needs to demonstrate to obtain a time
extension:
(1)
a
continuing intention to pursue his or her application;
(2)
that
the application has some merit;
(3)
that
no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and
(4)
that
a reasonable explanation for the delay exists.
[17]
In
the case at bar, I believe it is appropriate to grant an extension of time, as
these four criteria seem to me to have been met. I am of the opinion that the
motion before me, on the whole, constitutes a reasonable explanation for the
delay.
[18]
With
costs to the respondent.
“Alice Desjardins”
Email this Content