Date: 20041022
Docket: T-1079-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1474
Ottawa, Ontario, the 22nd day of October 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
GASTON J. SYLVAIN
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA in right of
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA in right of
THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA in right of the
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (HEALTH CANADA)
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC in right of the
MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DES PÊCHERIES ET
DE L'ALIMENTATION DU QUÉBEC
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion to dismiss filed by one of the defendants, namely the Attorney General of Quebec in right of the Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec.
[2] By a statement of claim filed in the Federal Court on June 1, 2004, Gaston J. Sylvain (the plaintiff) brought an action against the Attorney General of Canada as representing the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Health (Health Canada) and against the Attorney General of Quebec in right of the Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec (the defendants).
[3] The cause of action is food poisoning, to which the plaintiff was allegedly subject by consuming poultry once in 1993 and on three other occasions between 1995 and 2002. However, the dates and circumstances were not indicated in detail. The plaintiff attributed responsibility for this food poisoning to the defendants, who he said had not adequately monitored the quality of the food and who moreover concealed the facts regarding the contamination of poultry products. Finally, the defendants knowingly allowed the circulation of foodstuffs contaminated by pathogens which were highly detrimental to health.
[4] The plaintiff claimed damages for himself and eventually for everyone who might also have been victims of poisoning caused by contaminated poultry products, which is ultimately the purpose of the contemplated class action.
[5] The three defendants represented by the Attorney General of Canada filed a motion to strike the originating process on the following grounds:
- the matter is res judicata;
- the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action;
- there was no fault attributable to the defendants indicated in the statement of claim in connection with the alleged damage;
- this action is frivolous and vexatious and constitutes an abuse of process.
[6] For his part, the Attorney General of Quebec asked that he be relieved from the contestation primarily on the basis that section 17 of the Federal Courts Act does not give the Federal Court jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a provincial government, here the Attorney General of Quebec, and also on the definition of "Crown" in section 2 of the Federal Courts Act.
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
[7] Federal Courts Act, sections 2(1) and 17 and Rules 104(1) and 221(1) of the Federal Court Rules:
| Definitions 2. (1) In this Act, "Crown" means Her Majesty in right of Canada; |
|
Définitions 2. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi. « Couronne » Sa Majesté du chef du Canada. |
|
|
|
|
| 17. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.
|
|
17. (1) Sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale, la Cour fédérale a compétence concurrente, en première instance, dans les cas de demande de réparation contre la Couronne. |
| 17(2) Cases (2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction, except as otherwise provided, in all cases in which (a) the land, goods or money of any person is in the possession of the Crown; (b) the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the Crown; (c) there is a claim against the Crown for injurious affection; or (d) the claim is for damages under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
|
|
17(2) Motifs (2) Elle a notamment compétence concurrente en première instance, sauf disposition contraire, dans les cas de demande motivés par : a) la possession par la Couronne de terres, biens ou sommes d'argent appartenant à autrui; b) un contrat conclu par ou pour la Couronne; c) un trouble de jouissance don't la Couronne se rend coupable; d) une demande en dommages-intérêts formée au titre de la Loi sur la responsabilité civile de l'État et le contentieux administratif. |
| 17(3) Crown and subject: consent to jurisdiction (3) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters: (a) the amount to be paid if the Crown and any person have agreed in writing that the Crown or that person shall pay an amount to be determined by the Federal Court, the Federal Court - Trial Division or the Exchequer Court of Canada; and (b) any question of law, fact or mixed law and fact that the Crown and any person have agreed in writing shall be determined by the Federal Court, the Federal Court - Trial Division or the Exchequer Court of Canada.
|
|
17(3) Conventions écrites attributives de compétence (3) Elle a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour les questions suivantes : a) le paiement d'une somme don't le montant est à déterminer, aux termes d'une convention écrite à laquelle la Couronne est partie, par la Cour fédérale - ou l'ancienne Cour de l'Échiquier du Canada - ou par la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale; b) toute question de droit, de fait ou mixte à trancher, aux termes d'une convention écrite à laquelle la Couronne est partie, par la Cour fédérale - ou l'ancienne Cour de l'Échiquier du Canada - ou par la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale. |
| 17(4) Conflicting claims against Crown (4) The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings to determine disputes in which the Crown is or may be under an obligation and in respect of which there are or may be conflicting claims.
|
|
17(4) Demandes contradictoires contre la Couronne (4) Elle a compétence concurrente, en première instance, dans les procédures visant à régler les différends mettant en cause la Couronne à propos d'une obligation réelle ou éventuelle pouvant faire l'objet de demandes contradictoires. |
| 17(5) Relief in favour of Crown or against officer (5) The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction (a) in proceedings of a civil nature in which the Crown or the Attorney General of Canada claims relief; and (b) in proceedings in which relief is sought against any person for anything done or omitted to be done in the performance of the duties of that person as an officer, servant or agent of the Crown. |
|
17(5) Actions en réparation (5) Elle a compétence concurrente, en première instance, dans les actions en réparation intentées : a) au civil par la Couronne ou le procureur général du Canada; |
| b) contre un fonctionnaire, préposé ou mandataire de la Couronne pour des faits - actes ou omissions - survenus dans le cadre de ses fonctions.17(6) Federal Court has no jurisdiction (6) If an Act of Parliament confers jurisdiction in respect of a matter on a court constituted or established by or under a law of a province, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of the same matter unless the Act expressly confers that jurisdiction on that court. |
|
17(6) Incompétence de la Cour fédérale (6) Elle n'a pas compétence dans les cas où une loi fédérale donne compétence à un tribunal constitué ou maintenu sous le régime d'une loi provinciale sans prévoir expressément la compétence de la Cour fédérale.
|
| 104. (1) At any time, the Court may (a) order that a person who is not a proper or necessary party shall cease to be a party; or (b) order that a person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceeding may be effectually and completely determined be added as a party, but no person shall be added as a plaintiff or applicant without his or her consent, signified in writing or in such other manner as the Court may order. |
|
104. (1) La Cour peut, à tout moment, ordonner : a) qu'une personne constituée erronément comme partie ou une partie don't la présence n'est pas nécessaire au règlement des questions en litige soit mise hors de cause; b) que soit constituée comme partie à l'instance toute personne qui aurait dû l'être ou don't la présence devant la Cour est nécessaire pour assurer une instruction complète et le règlement des questions en litige dans l'instance; toutefois, nul ne peut être constitué codemandeur sans son consentement, lequel est notifié par écrit ou de telle autre manière que la Cour ordonne. |
|
|
|
|
| 221. (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it |
|
221. (1) À tout moment, la Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner la radiation de tout ou partie d'un acte de procédure, avec ou sans autorisation de le modifier, au motif, selon le cas : |
|
|
|
|
| (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be, |
|
a) qu'il ne révèle aucune cause d'action ou de défense valable; |
|
|
|
|
| (b) is immaterial or redundant, |
|
b) qu'il n'est pas pertinent ou qu'il est redondant; |
|
|
|
|
| (c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, |
|
c) qu'il est scandaleux, frivole ou vexatoire; |
|
|
|
|
| (d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action, |
|
d) qu'il risque de nuire à l'instruction équitable de l'action ou de la retarder; |
|
|
|
|
| (e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or |
|
e) qu'il diverge d'un acte de procédure antérieur; |
|
|
|
|
| (f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly. |
|
f) qu'il constitue autrement un abus de procédure.
Elle peut aussi ordonner que l'action soit rejetée ou qu'un jugement soit enregistré en conséquence. |
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
[8] The written submissions of the defendant Attorney General of Quebec are straightforward, concise and specific. In fact, the Attorney General of Quebec alleges that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a provincial government, here the Attorney General of Quebec.
[9] Referring to section 17 of the Federal Courts Act, the Attorney General of Quebec maintained that this section does not give the Federal Court Trial Division jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a provincial government.
[10] Additionally, referring to section 2(1) of the Federal Courts Act, the Attorney General of Quebec suggested that the definition of the "Crown" given in that section is Her Majesty in right of Canada. It follows that when an action is brought against a provincial government, the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a proceeding.
[11] For his part, counsel for the plaintiff suggested that the Attorney General of Quebec in right of the Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation is subject to the Federal Court, as the provincial government is an indivisible part of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
[12] In his notice of motion the Attorney General of Quebec asked, alternatively, that if the Court should decide not to allow his motion to be relieved from the contestation, he be given additional time to serve his defence.
[13] Counsel for the plaintiff, relying on this alternative motion, suggested that this was an admission that the defendant Attorney General of Quebec is not sure whether the Quebec provincial government is part of "Her Majesty in right of Canada".
[14] There is no need to dwell at length on the fact that this second allegation must be dismissed forthwith.
[15] This type of paragraph is to be found in most motions as an alternative remedy, so as to avoid delays in filing a supplementary motion for leave to file documents after the required deadline: it can in no way be seriously suggested that this is an admission by the Attorney General of Quebec.
[16] On the first argument, namely that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction, I entirely agree with the position of the Attorney General of Quebec.
[17] In support of his position, the Attorney General of Quebec filed a passage from Droit constitutionnel, by Henri Brun and Guy Tremblay, 4th ed., Éditions Yvon Blais, at page 94, where the two constitutional law experts state:
[TRANSLATION]
In so far as the Crown embodies the Canadian state, it is one and indivisible, having effectively separated in mid-century from the sovereign of the other parts of the British Empire. However, the Crown's powers and prerogatives are exercised in accordance with a distribution between the federal government and the provinces. Thus, in Re Silver Brothers Ltd., [1932] A.C. 514, at 524, it states:
It is true that there is only one Crown, but as regards Crown revenues and Crown property by legislation assented to by the Crown there is a distinction made between the revenues and property in the Province and the revenues and property in the Dominion. There are two separate statutory purses. In each the ingathering and expending authority is different.
In other words, if instead of speaking of the Crown as the embodiment of the Canadian state as a whole this expression is used to refer to the government, the "indivisibility" of the Crown no longer has any meaning. In a federal system, the executive function is distributed between federal entities and independent provincial entities, in the same way as the legislative function. That is why, from this standpoint, the divisibility of the Crown can be assumed with regard to the respective property and revenue of the federal and provincial governments: see ss. 102 to 126 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In order to account for this situation, the courts have developed the phrase "the Crown in right of": the Crown in right of Canada (the federal government) and the Crown in right of a particular province. See A.G. British Columbia v. A.G. Canada (1889), 14 A.C. 295, at 301; A.G. Canada v. A.G. Ontario, [1910] A.C. 637, at 645; Theodore v. Duncan, [1919] A.C. 696, at 706; A.G. Canada v. Higbie, [1945] S.C.R. 385; R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta, [1982] 2 All E.R. 118 (C.A.); Her Majesty in right of Alberta v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 61; and R. (Canada) v. The Queen (Prince Edward Island), [1978] 1 F.C. 533 (C.A.), reversing [1976] 2 F.C. 712, at 734-736. [Emphasis added.]
[18] In support of his arguments, the Attorney General of Quebec also made several references to precedent, inter alia Lavigne v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 165, at paragraph 65:
Section 17 [as am. idem, s. 3] of the Federal Court Act would be of no assistance to him as that section conferring jurisdiction does not apply to a provincial Crown or authorize relief against such Crown (see R. in Right of Canada v. Chief William Joe et al., [1984] 1 C.N.L.R. 96 (F.C.A.); Fédération Franco-Ténoise, supra, and MacDonald v. Ontario et al. (1999), 173 F.T.R. 310 (F.C.T.D.), sustained by the F.C.A. (2000) 264 N.R. 387.
[19] In Union Oil Co. v. Canada, [1976] 1 F.C. 74, the Federal Court of Appeal also noted:
The jurisdiction of the Federal Court is entirely statutory and, accepting that it lies within the powers of the Parliament of Canada, when legislating in a field within its competence, to give the Federal Court jurisdiction to implead the Crown in right of a province, we do not think any of the statutory provisions to which we were referred, or any others of which we are aware, authorize the Court to entertain a proceeding at the suit of a subject against the Crown in right of a province.
[20] Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada has also dealt with the matter, holding that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief against a province - Joe v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 145:
Moreover, as s. 17 of the Federal Court Act did not give the Court jurisdiction to grant relief against a province, the relief sought by the appellants could not be granted by the Court even if the Province of Newfoundland were a defendant in this action.
[21] I should note that in support of his arguments counsel for the plaintiff submitted no reference to precedent or academic authors that could confirm the Federal Court's jurisdiction to hear an action by an individual against a provincial government, here the Attorney General of Quebec.
[22] I have no hesitation in allowing the defendants' motion and concluding that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear the action against the Attorney General of Quebec.
[23] Finally, considering the particular circumstances of the case at bar, the Attorney General of Quebec asked that the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs. As the action brought in the Federal Court against the Attorney General of Quebec in right of the Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec, which is quite clearly a part of the provincial government, was completely unrealistic from the outset, the defendant Attorney General of Quebec will be entitled to costs.
ORDER
For all the foregoing reasons,
THE COURT ORDERS that:
- the motion at bar to be relieved from the contestation by the Attorney General of Quebec is allowed;
- the defendant Attorney General of Quebec is relieved from the contestation in the action at bar;
- the style of cause is amended to remove any reference to the Attorney General of Quebec as defendant;
- with costs against the plaintiff, which are set at $1,000 and are payable forthwith notwithstanding any appeal.
|
|
"Pierre Blais"
Judge |
Certified true translation
Jacques Deschênes, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1079-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: GASTON J. SYLVAIN
Plaintiff
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA in right of AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA in right of THE CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA in right of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (HEALTH CANADA)
-and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC in right of the MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DES PÊCHERIES ET DE L'ALIMENTATION DU QUÉBEC
Defendants
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec
DATE OF HEARING: October 13, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: Blais J.
DATED: October 22, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Petit FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Guy Lamb FOR THE DEFENDANT
Attorney General of Canada
Alain Tanguay FOR THE DEFENDANT
Attorney General of Quebec
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Daniel Petit FOR THE PLAINTIFF
4765, 1ière Avenue, bureau 280
Charlesbourg, Quebec
G1H 2T3
Guy Lamb FOR THE DEFENDANT
Attorney General of Canada Attorney General of Canada
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Montréal
Alain Tanguay FOR THE DEFENDANT
Bouchard, Gagnon Attorney General of Quebec
Justice Québec
300, boul. Jean-Lesage, bureau 1.03
Québec, Quebec