Animal Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1999) 168 F.T.R. 114 (TD)

JudgeGibson, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateApril 14, 1999
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1999), 168 F.T.R. 114 (TD)

Animal Alliance of Can. v. Can. (A.G.) (1999), 168 F.T.R. 114 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.150

Animal Alliance of Canada, Animal Protection Institute, Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, Dene Nation and Zoocheck Canada Inc. (applicants) v. The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of the Environment (respondents)

(T-374-99)

Indexed As: Animal Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Gibson, J.

May 13, 1999.

Summary:

In 1999, the federal government amended the Migratory Birds Regulations in an attempt to control the problem of an expo­nential growth in the Snow Geese popula­tion. The amended Regulations established a special hunting season to permit the killing of Snow Geese, Ross Geese and other spe­cies not easily distinguishable from the two types of geese. The applicants sought judi­cial review, submitting that the amended Regula­tions were, inter alia, ultra vires and infringed aboriginal rights contrary to s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, held that the amended Regulations were ultra vires only so far as they purported to authorize the killing of Ross Geese and other species not easily distinguishable from Snow Geese. The amended Regulations were intra vires respecting Snow Geese and were not proved to violate s. 35(1).

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate ex­pectation - In 1999, the federal govern­ment amended the Migratory Birds Regu­lations in an attempt to control the prob­lem of an exponential growth in the Snow Geese population - The amended Regula­tions established a special hunting season to permit the killing of Snow Geese, Ross Geese and other species not easily distin­guishable from the two types of geese - The applicants sought judicial review, submitting that the federal Crown violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation by violating Ministerial policy for regulating wildlife in the Objectives and Guidelines for Establishment of National Regulations for Migratory Game Bird Hunting - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission - See paragraphs 51 to 58.

Administrative Law - Topic 7525

Delegated powers - Validity of delegated powers - Rules or regulations - Ultra vires - In 1999, the federal government amended the Migratory Birds Regulations in an attempt to control the problem of an expo­nential growth in the Snow Geese popula­tion - The amended Regulations established a special hunting season to permit the killing of Snow Geese, Ross Geese and other species not easily distin­guishable from the two types of geese - The appli­cants sought judicial review, submitting that the federal Crown unlaw­fully subdelegated its decision-making power respecting whether an overabundance of Snow Geese existed (i.e., permitted the Americans and Mexicans to make that decision) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that there was no subdelegation im­pairing the validity of the amended Regu­lations - See paragraphs 45 to 50.

Administrative Law - Topic 7565

Delegated powers - Sub-delegation of powers - Prohibition against delegation by delegate (delegatus non potest delegare) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7525 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 506

Rights - General - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 - Interpretation - In 1999, the feder­al government amended the Migratory Birds Regulations in an attempt to control the problem of an exponential growth in the Snow Geese population - The amended Regulations established a special hunting season to permit the killing of Snow Geese, Ross Geese and other species not easily distin­guishable from the two types of geese - The applicants claimed that the amended Regulations infringed aboriginal rights contrary to s. 35(1) of the Constitu­tion Act, 1982 - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that there was insuffi­cient evidence before the court to find that the amended Regulations violated aborig­inal rights - See paragraphs 65 to 72.

Statutes - Topic 5364

Operation and effect - Delegated legisla­tion - Regulations - Validity of - Conflict with statute authorizing regulation - In 1999, the federal government amended the Migratory Birds Regulations in an attempt to control the problem of an exponential growth in the Snow Geese population - The amended Regulations established a special hunting season to permit the killing of Snow Geese, Ross Geese and other species not easily distinguishable from the two types of geese - The applicants sought judicial review, submitting that the amended Regulations were ultra vires - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, held that the amended Regulations were intra vires respecting Snow Geese (ultra vires respecting Ross Geese and other species) - The Regulations were authorized by and not contrary to the Migratory Birds Convention Act - See paragraphs 1 to 44.

Statutes - Topic 5367

Operation and effect - Delegated legisla­tion - Regulations - Validity of - Ultra vires - Whether purpose authorized by empowering statute - [See Statutes - Topic 5364 ].

Cases Noticed:

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 4].

Angus et al. v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 410; 111 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 5].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. et al. v. R., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

Doctors Hospital v. Ontario (Minister of Health) et al. (1976), 68 D.L.R.(3d) 220 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33, foot­note 12].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 14].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal (1990), 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 14].

Salomon v. Customs and Excise Commis­sioners, [1967] 2 Q.B. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 14].

Vic Restaurant Inc. v. Montreal (City), [1959] S.C.R. 58, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 15].

Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8 et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al. (1994), 174 N.R. 37 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 16].

Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1373, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 19].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 78 C.L.L.C. 14,181, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 19].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 70, foot­note 20].

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 22].

Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 45 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 23].

Makivik Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [1999] 1 F.C. 38 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(1) [para. 70, footnote 21].

Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22, sect. 4, sect. 12(1) [para. 21].

Migratory Birds Convention Act, Migra­tory Birds Convention, preamble [para. 12]; art, 2 [para. 14]; art. 7 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 397 [para. 34, footnote 13]; 398 [para. 35].

Counsel:

David Estrin and Lesli Bisgould, for the applicant;

Peter A. Vita and Cassandra Kirewskie, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Department of Justice, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 14, 1999, at Toronto, Ontario, before Gibson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered the following judgment on May 13, 1999.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Statutory Interpretation. Third Edition Preliminary Sections
    • 23 de junho de 2016
    ...147 379 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 380 Animal Alliance of Canada v Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 4 FC 72, 168 FTR 114, [1999] FCJ No 696 (TD) ..............................261 Antosko v Canada, [1994] 2 SCR 312, 168 NR 16, [1994] SCJ No 46 ............... 245 Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Animals and the Law Part III
    • 15 de junho de 2011
    ...C 153 ..................................................................... 230 Animal Alliance of Canada v Canada (AG), [1999] 4 FC 72, 168 FTR 114, [1999] FCJ No 696 (TD) ...................................................................... 271 Application of Abitibi Co, Re (1982), 62 CP......
  • Domesticating the exotic species: international biodiversity law in Canada.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 51 No. 2, June 2006
    • 22 de junho de 2006
    ...(65) WCWC (C.A.), ibid. at para. 33. (66) Ibid. at para. 74. (67) Ibid. at para. 80. (68) Ibid. at paras. 79-80. (69) [1999] 4 F.C. 72, 168 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.) [Animal Alliance cited to (70) S.O.R./99-147 [Regulations]. (71) Animal Alliance, supra note 69 at para. 32. (72) Ruth Sullivan, Drie......
  • Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al., (2001) 204 F.T.R. 161 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 27 de novembro de 2000
    ...1 D.L.R. 12 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 165]. Animal Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 4 F.C. 72; 168 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Alberta Wilderness Association et al. v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd. (1999), 165 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 169].......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 cases
  • Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al., (2001) 204 F.T.R. 161 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 27 de novembro de 2000
    ...1 D.L.R. 12 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 165]. Animal Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 4 F.C. 72; 168 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. Alberta Wilderness Association et al. v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd. (1999), 165 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 169].......
  • Animal Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2000) 259 N.R. 49 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • 29 de junho de 2000
    ...aboriginal rights contrary to s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 168 F.T.R. 114, held that the amended Regulations were ultra vires only so far as they purported to authorize the killing of Ross Geese and other species......
  • R. v. Duffett (R.) et al., (2005) 252 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 167 (NLTD)
    • Canada
    • Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
    • 31 de outubro de 2005
    ...C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9]. Animal Alliance of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 4 F.C. 72; 168 F.T.R. 114; 30 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 102 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote R. v. Boutcher (A.) (2001), 202 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 243; 608 A.P.R. 243; 2001 C......
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Statutory Interpretation. Third Edition Preliminary Sections
    • 23 de junho de 2016
    ...147 379 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 380 Animal Alliance of Canada v Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 4 FC 72, 168 FTR 114, [1999] FCJ No 696 (TD) ..............................261 Antosko v Canada, [1994] 2 SCR 312, 168 NR 16, [1994] SCJ No 46 ............... 245 Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Animals and the Law Part III
    • 15 de junho de 2011
    ...C 153 ..................................................................... 230 Animal Alliance of Canada v Canada (AG), [1999] 4 FC 72, 168 FTR 114, [1999] FCJ No 696 (TD) ...................................................................... 271 Application of Abitibi Co, Re (1982), 62 CP......
  • Fostering Compliance with International Biodiversity Law: Environmental Advocacy Groups Inside and Outside the Courtroom
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Globalized Rule of Law. Relationships between International and Domestic Law Part Two Section B
    • 28 de agosto de 2006
    ...In 59 Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, above note 14. 60 Animal Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 4 F.C. 72, 168 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.) [ Animal Alliance v. Canada ]. 61 S.O.R./99-147. S.O.R./99-147. 62 Animal Alliance v. Canada , above note 60 at para. 32. 63 Ruth Sul......
  • Domesticating the exotic species: international biodiversity law in Canada.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 51 No. 2, June 2006
    • 22 de junho de 2006
    ...(65) WCWC (C.A.), ibid. at para. 33. (66) Ibid. at para. 74. (67) Ibid. at para. 80. (68) Ibid. at paras. 79-80. (69) [1999] 4 F.C. 72, 168 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.) [Animal Alliance cited to (70) S.O.R./99-147 [Regulations]. (71) Animal Alliance, supra note 69 at para. 32. (72) Ruth Sullivan, Drie......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT