Canada (Attorney General) v. Aéroport de Québec Inc., (2011) 384 F.T.R. 240 (FC)

• Judge: Bédard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 384 F.T.R. 240 (FC);2011 FC 195

Can. (A.G.) v. Qué. Airport (2011), 384 F.T.R. 240 (FC)

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: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.041

Procureur général du Canada (demandeur) v. Aéroport de Québec Inc. (défenderesse)

(T-738-10; 2011 CF 195; 2011 FC 195)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Aéroport de Québec Inc.

Federal Court

Bédard, J.

February 18, 2011.

Summary:

This was an application, in accordance with s. 33.1 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA) and Rule 300 of the Federal Courts Rules, for the enforcement of a direction by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (SFI), who was represented by the Attorney General of Canada. The Attorney General was applying to the court for an order requiring Aéroport de Québec Inc. to comply with the direction made by the SFI and to pay $263,000, plus interest from October 15, 2008, to the pension plan fund of the general management of Aéroport de Québec Inc.

The Federal Court allowed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - [See Courts - Topic 4016 ].

Courts - Topic 4016

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - General - This was an application, in accordance with s. 33.1 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA) and Rule 300 of the Federal Courts Rules, for the enforcement of a direction by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (SFI), who was represented by the Attorney General of Canada (Attorney General) - The Attorney General was applying to the court for an order requiring Aéroport de Québec Inc. to comply with the direction made by the SFI and to pay $263,000, plus interest from October 15, 2008, to the pension plan fund of the general management of Aéroport de Québec Inc. - The Federal Court allowed the application - First, the court had the authority to issue the order sought under s. 33.1 of the PBSA and it was unnecessary to use its inherent authority to rule on the application - Second, the defence used by Aéroport de Québec to challenge the order directly challenged the validity of the direction made by the SFI: Aéroport de Québec did not comply with the direction because it believed that, given the circumstances, it was not appropriate for the SFI to make this direction - The court held that Aéroport de Québec could not challenge the validity of the direction made by the SFI in the context of this application for enforcement and that it should order its enforcement.

Cases Noticed:

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, dist. [para. 19].

Manuge v. Canada (2010), 410 N.R. 113; 2010 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 193, consd. [para. 25].

Cousins et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 386 N.R. 223; 2008 FCA 226, refd to. [para. 39].

Buschau et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 393 N.R. 337; 2009 FCA 258, refd to. [para. 39].

Grenier v. Canada, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 287; 344 N.R. 102; 2005 FCA 348, refd to. [para. 45].

Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 165; 327 N.R. 160; 2004 FCA 172, refd to. [para. 45].

Counsel:

Vincent Veilleux, for the applicant;

Daniel Dumais, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Miles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Heenan Blaikie Aubut, s.e.n.c.r.l., Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 19, 2011, at Quebec, Quebec, by Bédard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 18, 2011.