Date: 20020719
Docket: T-826-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 807
Montréal, Quebec, July 19, 2002
Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
BETWEEN:
DOMINIQUE LAUNIÈRE
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
CONSEIL DES MONTAGNAIS DU LAC-ST-JEAN
Defendants
Motion by the defendant the Conseil des Montagnais du Lac-St-Jean to dismiss the simplified action for lack of jurisdiction by the Court.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] On January 18, 1999, the plaintiff brought a direct action in nullity against one of the defendants, the Conseil des Montagnais du Lac-St-Jean ("the Conseil") in the Quebec Superior Court.
[2] By that direct action in nullity the plaintiff sought to challenge his dismissal on or about February 20, 1998, on the grounds inter alia that there was no impartial and independent inquiry, no resolution by the Conseil and no observance of the rules of natural justice.
[3] Based on these arguments, the plaintiff asked the Superior Court to make the following order:
- QUASH the notice of dismissal issued by the defendant's director on February 20, 1998;
- ORDER the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $14,970, subject to completion;
- RESERVE any other remedies for the plaintiff;
- THE WHOLE with costs.
[4] In response to these allegations and the conclusions in nullity, the Conseil filed a motion for a declinatory exception ratione materiae, pursuant to s. 18 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 ("the Act"), alleging that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over a matter involving the review of a decision by a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
[5] On March 4, 2002, Roger Banford J. of the Superior Court for the judicial district of Roberval allowed the said motion for a declinatory exception and declined the Superior Court's jurisdiction over the said direct action in nullity filed against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
[6] On June 3, 2002, the plaintiff's simplified action at bar was served on the Conseil.
[7] By this new action the plaintiff amended his conclusions to indicate that the only express remedy sought was an order that the Conseil pay the sum of $14,970.
[8] The instant motion by the Conseil must be allowed, with costs, for two reasons.
[9] First, it seems clear that the plaintiff cannot expect to obtain damages before first obtaining a ruling by this Court that his dismissal by the Conseil was unlawful.
[10] Such a remedy is obtained by an application for judicial review, for which the plaintiff will have to obtain by a preliminary motion an extension of time pursuant to s. 18.1(2) of the Act. Moreover, I cannot comply with the plaintiff's wishes here and extend the deadline under s. 18.1(2) of the Act. Only a judge of this Court hearing a motion record can consider that possibility.
[11] Second, we have to look at s. 17 of the Act to determine the Court's jurisdiction to eventually award damages.
[12] Section 17 provides that it is the Trial Division which has jurisdiction in all cases where relief is claimed against the Crown.
[13] It has been held that the word "Crown" in s. 17 should be strictly interpreted and could not include a federal board, commission or other tribunal (see Fédération Franco-Ténoise et al. v. Canada, [2001] 1 F.C. 241). On the contrary, cases involving a federal board, commission or other tribunal which can be heard by the Federal Court are limited to the extraordinary remedies set out in s. 18 of the Act.
[14] In the case at bar it appears that the defendant Conseil is an Indian band within the meaning of Indian Act and is a federal board, commission or other tribunal within the meaning of the Act, as has been held on several occasions (see Canatonquin et al. v. Gabriel et al., [1980] 2 F.C. 792).
"Richard Morneau"
prothonotary
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020719
Docket: T-826-02
Between:
DOMINIQUE LAUNIÈRE
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and CONSEIL DES MONTAGNAIS DU LAC-ST-JEAN
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-826-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: DOMINIQUE LAUNIÈRE
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
CONSEIL DES MONTAGNAIS DU LAC-ST-JEAN
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: July 19, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Frédéric Boily FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Luis Baz FOR THE DEFENDANT
CONSEIL DES MONTAGNAIS
DU LAC-ST-JEAN
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bouchard, Voyer, Boily FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Dolbeau-Mistassini, Quebec
Caine, Lamarre, Casgrain, Wells FOR THE DEFENDANT
Roberval, Quebec CONSEIL DES MONTAGNAIS
DU LAC-ST-JEAN