Châteauneuf v. Canada, (1997) 178 F.T.R. 236 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 17, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 178 F.T.R. 236 (TD)

Châteauneuf v. Can. (1997), 178 F.T.R. 236 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.065

Robert Châteauneuf, en son nom personnel et en qualité de représentant de toutes les personnes physiques qui, employées de la compagnie Singer entre le 31 décembre 1946 et le 31 décembre 1964, ont alors acquis droit et ont effectivement reçu ou racheté par la suite une annuité du service des Rentes sur l'État du gouvernement fédéral canadien en vertu de la police collective d'annuités G-522 du 31 décembre 1946 soit à titre de créancier principal soit à titre de bénéficiaire du créancier principal ainsi que des ayants-droit ayant pu naître à ces personnes physiques en raison de leur décès (partie demanderesse) v. Sa Majesté la Reine (partie défenderesse)

(T-2728-96)

Indexed As: Châteauneuf v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Morneau, Prothonotary

November 26, 1997.

Summary:

The plaintiff sought to bring a class action against the federal Crown on behalf of all Singer employees, registered to a group annuity policy, who became and remained entitled as of December 1946 or after, to receive from the Canadian federal govern­ment Annuities Plan an annuity composed of their own contributions and those of their employer. The Crown challenged the plain­tiff's right to bring the class action on two grounds: (1) there was no common com­plaint and (2) there lacked evidence as to the personal identity of each individual making up the class.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected both grounds and certified the plaintiff as class representative.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - General principles - A plaintiff sought to bring a class action against the federal Crown on behalf of all Singer employees, registered to a group annuity policy, who were entitled as of December 1946 to receive an annuity from the federal gov­ernment Annuities Plan - The Crown submitted that the plaintiff did not have a common complaint with the other class members because the common complaint claimed payments from 1947 to 1957 and the plaintiff only subscribed to the policy in 1957 - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission - An equal share in the common fund was not required - What mattered was the existence of a common fund - All members had the same general interest in obtaining a share of the fund - Variation of the share did not preclude a class action - See paragraphs 41 to 54.

Practice - Topic 209.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Members of class - General - A plaintiff sought to bring a class action against the federal Crown on behalf of all Singer employees, registered to a group annuity policy, who were entitled as of December 1946 to receive an annuity from the federal government Annuities Plan - The Crown submitted that personal identification of class members was required and that the plaintiff had not provided such evidence - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission - A list of signatures was not required - The para­meters of the class were sufficiently speci­fic and there was no need to require that class members be individually identified by name in a list or affidavit - See para­graphs 55 to 66.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Certification - Con­siderations (incl. when class action appro­priate) - [See Practice - Topic 209 and Practice - Topic 209.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pawar v. Canada (1996), 123 F.T.R. 257 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 17].

Native Transfer Committee at Mountain Institution v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1997), 125 F.T.R. 10 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 17].

Pawar et al. v. Canada (1997), 132 F.T.R. 44 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 21].

Pawar et al. v. Canada (1997), 137 F.T.R. 231 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 24].

Naken et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 72; 46 N.R. 139, refd to. [para. 30].

Bedford (Duke) v. Ellis, [1901] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Guy Désautels, for the plaintiff;

Carole Bureau and Linda Mercier, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Rivest Schmidt, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

George Thomspon, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This application was heard on November 17, 1997, at Montreal, Quebec, by Mor­neau, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following reasons for order on November 26, 1997.