Andrews et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2008) 278 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241 (NLTD)

• Judge: Faour, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: December 07, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2008), 278 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241 (NLTD)

Andrews v. Can. (A.G.) (2008), 278 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241 (NLTD);

    854 A.P.R. 241

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. SE.006

Bert Andrews, Winston Andrews, Dwight Attwood, Jerry Best, Glenn Burton, Perry Burton, David Cassell, Ronald Goodyear, Lloyd Hart, Lionel House, Barry Humphries, Edgar Hunt, George W. Jacobs, Dwight Mouland, Glenn Penney, James Pond, Walter Rogers, Rodney Rowe, Stephen Rowe, Wally Shiner, Ivan Small, Robert Small, Harold Stagg, Alphonsus Tulk, Carl Vincent, and Harold Waterman (plaintiffs/respondent) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant/applicant)

(200501T8918; 2008 NLTD 145)

Indexed As: Andrews et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division

Faour, J.

September 5, 2008.

Summary:

Fishermen alleged a contractual agreement was reached with the Minister of Fisheries in the mid-1990's to take a reduced quota of snow crab in exchange for certain assurances respecting future quota allocations. The fishermen alleged that the Minister, in future allocations, breached that contractual arrangement. The fishermen brought an action in damages against the Minister for breach of contract or, alternatively, for negligence in making contractual promises he was not authorized to make. The Attorney General applied to strike the statement of claim on the grounds that (1) the Minister was exercising a discretion which could only be challenged by way of judicial review in the Federal Court and (2) the action failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, struck the statement of claim. The court stated that "the statement of claim is struck out on the basis that the essence of this action, being a challenge to a decision of the Minister, a subject matter not within the jurisdiction of this court and one which does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, requires successful judicial review in the Federal Court before it may proceed".

Courts - Topic 4028

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Claims against Crown and related claims - [See Courts - Topic 5685 ].

Courts - Topic 5685

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Actions against Federal Crown - Fishermen alleged a contractual agreement was reached with the Minister of Fisheries in the mid-1990's to take a reduced quota of snow crab in exchange for certain assurances respecting future quota allocations - The fishermen alleged that the Minister, in future allocations, breached that contractual arrangement - The fishermen brought an action in damages against the Minister for breach of contract or, alternatively, for negligence in making contractual promises he was not authorized to make - The Attorney General applied to strike the statement of claim on the ground that the Minister was exercising a discretion which could only be challenged by way of judicial review in the Federal Court - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, struck the statement of claim for want of jurisdiction - The fishermen conceded that the Minister's decision was discretionary and that they had not sought judicial review - The court stated that "notwithstanding the plaintiffs' characterization of the action as being one in tort or contract, it is in reality a challenge to the discretion of the Minister in issuing licences ... The allegations here ... intimately engage the exercise of ministerial discretion. The action cannot proceed without challenging the Minister's authority respecting licensing and quota. That challenge must be done by way of judicial review in the Federal Court, and this court does not have jurisdiction" - The existence of a contract was irrelevant, because the alleged contract would fetter the Minister's exercise of discretion and could not be sustained on that basis - Likewise, even if the allegations of negligence were made out, the only possible outcome was an attack on the Minister's exercise of discretion - The court stated that "where a decision is lawfully within the Minister's authority, as here, it is not possible to make a collateral attack on that authority by alleging a contract or negligence" - The court opined that the action would be struck under rule 14.24(1)(a) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, because it was "plain and obvious" that the action, based on the Minister's pure policy decision, could not be the basis for a claim in contract or tort - See paragraphs 13 to 83.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Courts - Topic 5685 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 5685 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada Labour Relations Board and Canada (Attorney General) v. L'Anglais (Paul) Inc. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147; 47 N.R. 351; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 202; 1983 CarswellQue 101; 83 C.L.L.C. 14,033, refd to. [para. 16].

Strang v. Canada (1988), 67 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 193; 206 A.P.R. 193; 1987 CarswellNfld 221 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 558; 1982 CarswellNat 484, refd to. [para. 19].

House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314; 2005 CarswellNat 1272; 2005 C.L.L.C. 230-016; 41 C.C.E.L.(3d) 1; 252 D.L.R.(4th) 529; 28 Admin L.R.(4th) 1; 135 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 2005 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 20].

Keeping v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (2003), 224 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 669 A.P.R. 234; 2003 CarswellNfld 113; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 285; 16 C.C.L.T.(3d) 250; 2 Admin. L.R.(4th) 1; 2003 NLCA 21, refd to. [para. 24].

Oak Island International Group Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 286; 665 A.P.R. 286; 2003 CarswellNS 47; 30 C.P.C.(5th) 355; 2003 NSSC 77, dist. [para. 26].

Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation (2002), 323 A.R. 81; 2002 CarswellAlta 1004; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 523; 2002 ABQB 765, affd. [2006] 1 W.W.R. 71; (2005), 361 A.R. 287; 339 W.A.C. 287; 2005 CarswellAlta 31; [2005] A.W.L.D. 764; [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 96; 35 Alta. L.R.(4th) 203; 248 D.L.R.(4th) 505; 2005 ABCA 15, refd to. [para. 27].

Dhalla et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 286 F.T.R. 255; 2006 CarswellNat 217; 145 A.C.W.S.(3d) 906; 2006 FC 100, refd to. [para. 30].

Paszkowski v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] 2 F.C.R. 507; 287 F.T.R. 116; 2006 CarswellNat 359; 51 Imm. L.R.(3d) 299; 146 A.C.W.S.(3d) 334; 2006 FC 198, refd to. [para. 31].

Genge v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 270 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 182; 822 A.P.R. 182; 2007 CarswellNfld 296; 160 A.C.W.S.(3d) 903; 2007 NLCA 60, refd to. [para. 33].

Grenier v. Canada, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 287; 344 N.R. 102; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 337; 2005 CarswellNat 4429; 2005 FCA 348, refd to. [para. 37].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 1980 CarswellNat 633; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1; [1980] 2 F.C.R. 735, refd to. [para. 51].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 1985 CarswellNat 151; 12 Admin. L.R. 16; 13 C.R.R. 287; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 53].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 1990 CarswellBC 216; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385; 4 C.O.H.S.C. 173, refd to. [para. 54].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

N.S.E.J. v. Moravian Union (2003), 226 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 128; 673 A.P.R. 128; 2003 CarswellNfld 150; 35 C.P.C.(5th) 283; 2003 NLCA 28, refd to. [para. 54].

Bond Architects and Engineers Ltd. v. McNamara Corp. of Newfoundland (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 229; 211 A.P.R. 2; 1988 CarswellNfld 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Co., [1930] S.C.R. 500; 1930 CarswellNat 38; [1930] 4 D.L.R. 241, refd to. [para. 61].

Comeau's Sea Foods v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12; 206 N.R. 363; 1997 CarswellNat 10; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 31 C.C.L.T.(2d) 236; 43 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Joliffe v. Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 511; 1985 CarswellNat 66 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Carpenter Fishing Corp. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1998] 2 F.C. 548; 221 N.R. 372; 1997 CarswellNat 2509; 155 D.L.R.(4th) 572 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104; 2001 CarswellQue 1272; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 36 Admin. L.R.(3d) 71; 2001 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 70].

Area Twenty Three Snow Crab Fisher's Association et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 279 F.T.R. 137; 2005 CarswellNat 2631; 2005 FC 1190, refd to. [para. 73].

Counsel:

Reinhold Endres, Q.C., for the defendant/applicant;

John Sinnott, Q.C., for the plaintiffs/respondents.

This application was heard on April 11, October 10 and December 7, 2006, and December 21, 2007, at St. John's, Nfld. and Lab., before Faour, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on September 5, 2008.