Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., (1996) 115 F.T.R. 81 (TD)

• Judge: Richard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 27, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 115 F.T.R. 81 (TD)

Can. (A.G.) v. Royal Comm. of Inquiry (1996), 115 F.T.R. 81 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter of The Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, pursuant to Order-in-Council, P.C. 1993-1879

In The Matter Of Notices issued pursuant to the Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-11, the Public Inquiries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-41, and the Public Inquiries Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. P-31

The Attorney General of Canada ... The Canadian Red Cross Society et al. (applicants) [names of other applicants omitted] v. The Honourable Horace Krever, Commissioner of the Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, P.C. 1993-1879 (respondent) and Canadian Hemophilia Society, Canadian Aids Society, HIV-T Group (Blood Transfused), Janet Conners (Infected Spouses and Children), Canadian Hemophiliacs Infected With HIV, Committee for HIV Affected and Transmitted, Association of Hemophilia Clinic Directors of Canada, Hepatitis C Survivors Society, Gignac, Sutts Group, Guy Henri-Godin and Jean-Daniel Couture, The Hepatitis C Group, The Toronto and Central Ontario Regional Hemophilia Society (intervenors)

(T-154-96; T-156-96; T-157-96; T-158-96; T-159-96; T-160-96; T-161-96; T-163-96; T-164-96; T-165-96; T-166-96; T-167-96; T-168-96; T-169-96; T-177-96)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Richard, J.

June 27, 1996.

Summary:

In 1993 a Royal Commission was appointed to review and report on the blood system in Canada, including events surrounding the contamination of the blood supply in the early 1980s. The Commission held public hearings throughout Canada between 1993 and 1995. An interim report was released on February 24, 1995 with the final report due on September 30, 1996. Before the final report, the Commissioner issued notices under s. 13 of the Inquiries Act advising certain named governments, institutions and individuals that the Commissioner may make findings that may amount to misconduct against the recipients and that they had the right to respond. The Canadian Red Cross Society et al. applied for judicial review, alleging that after some two years of hearings the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make any of the possible findings of fact set forth in the notices or, in the event that he originally had such jurisdiction, he had lost such jurisdiction by virtue of either the assurances he had given or the procedures which he had adopted. The Canadian Red Cross Society also alleged that the Commissioner's counsel adopted an adversarial approach during the course of the inquiry and ought to be prevented from assisting the Commissioner in the preparation of his final report.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the notices and refused to prohibit the Commissioner's counsel from assisting in preparation of the report. The court issued directions to the Commissioner respecting which natural person notice recipients could be named in adverse fact findings, but otherwise dismissed the judicial review applications.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 7969 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7912

Public inquiries - Procedural fairness - [See third Administrative Law - Topic 7969 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7913

Public inquiries - Role of counsel - In 1993 a Royal Commission was appointed to review and report on the Canadian blood system - After hearings but before a final report, the Commissioner issued notices under s. 13 of the Inquiries Act advising certain parties that he might make findings of misconduct and that they had the right to respond - The Canadian Red Cross Society alleged that the Commissioner's counsel adopted an adversarial approach during the inquiry and ought to be prevented from assisting the Commissioner in the preparation of his final report - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that this objection was premature, and even if it were not, the court would reject the argument - See paragraphs 159 to 162.

Administrative Law - Topic 7969

Public inquiries - Powers of - To make findings of misconduct - Issuance of notices re - In 1993 a Royal Commission was appointed to review and report on the blood system in Canada - After hearings but before the final report, the Commissioner notified certain parties that he might make findings of misconduct and that they had the right to respond (Inquiries Act, s. 13) - The Canadian Red Cross Society et al. sought judicial review, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the s. 13 notices or, if he originally had jurisdiction, he had lost jurisdiction by virtue of either the assurances he had given or the procedures which he had adopted - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application and refused to quash the notices - See paragraphs 51 to 158.

Administrative Law - Topic 7969

Public inquiries - Powers of - To make findings of misconduct - Issuance of notices re - In 1993 a Royal Commission was appointed to review and report on the Canadian blood system, including the contamination of the blood supply in the 1980s - After the hearings but before the final report, the Commissioner notified certain parties under s. 13 of the Inquiries Act that he might make findings of misconduct and they had the right to respond - The Canadian Red Cross Society et al. sought to quash the notices, alleging that the doctrine of legitimate expectations applied because the Commissioner made assurances during the hearings that he would not make findings of civil or criminal liability - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the doctrine of legitimate expectations was not applicable - See paragraphs 76 to 86.

Administrative Law - Topic 7969

Public inquiries - Powers of - To make findings of misconduct - Issuance of notices re - In 1993 a Royal Commission was appointed to review and report on the Canadian blood system - Before rendering his final report, the Commissioner notified certain parties (Inquiries Act, s. 13) that he might make findings of misconduct and that they had the right to respond - The Canadian Red Cross Society et al. argued that the Commissioner lost jurisdiction to issue the notices due to procedural unfairness (Charter, s. 7, Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 2(e) and the Inquiries Act, ss. 12 and 13) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that ss. 2(e) and 7 were not applicable, and even if they were, the inquiry fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness - Further the inquiry provided the procedural safeguards required by the Inquiries Act - See paragraphs 122 to 158.

Cases Noticed:

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 161; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 472, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 2].

Moreno and Sanchez v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 298; 159 N.R. 210 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 51].

Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City) et al. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 241; 23 O.R.(3d) 498 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 52].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 56].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

O'Hara and Kirkbride v. British Columbia, [1987] 3 W.W.R. 362 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1987] 2 S.C.R. 591; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 216; 80 N.R. 127, refd to. [para. 65, footnotes 57, 58].

Robinson v. British Columbia - see O'Hara and Kirkbride v. British Columbia.

Keable v. Canada (Procureur général) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 58].

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Warden of the Common Jail of Montreal (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 58].

Faber v. Sa Majesté la Reine et le Procureur général et Ministre de la Justice de la Province du Québec et autres, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 9; 6 N.R. 1 (Fr.), 8 N.R. 29 (Eng.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 58].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J. (1993), 117 N.S.R.(2d) 218; 324 A.P.R. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 58].

Nelles et al. v. Grange et al. (1984), 3 O.A.C. 40; 46 O.R.(2d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 63].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 65].

Bendahmane v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 3 F.C. 16; 95 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 66].

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. 78, footnote 67].

Attorney General of HongKong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, [1983] 2 A.C. 629 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 69].

R. v. Secretary of State, [1987] 2 All E.R. 518, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 70].

R. v. Secretary of State, [1985] 1 All E.R. 40, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 70].

Gaw v. Commissioner of Corrections (1986), 2 F.T.R. 122; 19 Admin. L.R. 137 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 71].

Bawolak v. Exroy Resources Ltd. (1992), 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 137 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 71].

Lehndorff United Properties (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Edmonton (City) (1993), 146 A.R. 37; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 67 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 71].

Pollard et al. v. Surrey (District) et al. (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 81; 43 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 71].

Sierra Club of Western Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1991), 83 D.L.R.(4th) 708 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 71].

Furey et al. v. Board of Education (Roman Catholic) of Conception Bay Centre et al. (1993), 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328; 339 A.P.R. 328; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 455 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 71].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 78, footnote 72].

Lidder v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 2 F.C. 621; 136 N.R. 254 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 73].

R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618; 114 N.R. 284; 43 O.A.C. 340; 1 C.R.(4th) 285, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 77].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 78].

Landreville v. R. (No. 2), [1977] 2 F.C. 726 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 81].

Richards v. Miller, J. (1996), N.B.R.(2d) Advance Sheets, No. 98, May 21, 1996, p. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 81].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 122, footnote 107].

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. v. Irvine et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 129, footnote 108].

Ontario (Crime Commission), Re; Ex parte Feeley and McDermott (1962), 34 D.L.R.(2d) 451 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 110].

Children's Aid Society of York (County), Re, [1934] O.W.N. 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 110].

Shulman, Re, [1967] 2 O.R. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 111].

Fraternité interprovinciale des ouvriers en électricité v. Québec (Office de la Construction) (1983), 148 D.L.R.(3d) 626 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 112].

Mahon v. Air New Zealand, [1984] 3 All E.R. 201 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 115].

Hecla Mining Co. of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. and Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1988), 116 N.R. 44 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 147, footnote 122].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 123].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 5 [para. 89].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, sect. 2(e) [para. 107].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 89, 107]; sect. 13 [para. 89].

Evidence Act (Can.) - see Canada Evidence Act.

Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-11, sect. 2 [para. 52]; sect. 4, sect. 5 [para. 53]; sect. 11(1) [para. 54]; sect. 12, sect. 13 [para. 55].

Public Inquiries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-41, sect. 5(2) [para. 38].

Public Inquiries Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. P-31, sect. 7 [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Law Reform Institute, Proposals for the Reform of the Public Inquiries Act (1992), Report No. 62, generally [para. 57, footnote 50].

Arbour Report - see Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston.

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Advisory and Investigatory Commissions, Report No. 13 (December, 1979), p. 40 [para. 62, footnote 55].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Commissions of Inquiry: A New Act, Working Paper 17 (1977), generally [paras. 51, 53, footnote 44]; pp. 13 [para. 59, footnote 53]; 34 [paras. 60, 131, footnote 109]; 50, 51 [para. 61, footnote 54].

Canada, Parliamentary Standing Committee, Tragedy and Challenge: Canada's Blood System and HIV (Wilbee Report)(May 13, 1993), pp. 1, 2, 3 [para. 10, footnotes 3, 4, 5]; 5, 6 [para. 16, footnote 8]; 9, 20 [para. 17, footnote 9]; 25 [para. 18, footnote 10].

Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (Arbour Report) (1995), generally [para. 93, footnote 80, para. 151, footnote 125]; p. 305 [para. 165, footnote 133].

Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance (Dubin Report) (1990), generally [para. 151, footnote 124]; p. xxix [para. 57, footnote 49].

Dubin Report - see Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs etc.

Globe and Mail, Article, "Bad Blood Probe Needed, Collins Says" (September 16, 1993), generally [para. 21, footnote 12].

Henderson, Gordon, Abuse of Power by Royal Commissions, Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1979), generally [para. 53, footnote 46].

Henderson, Gordon, The Abuse of Power and the Role of an Independent Judicial System in its Regulation and Control, Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1979), generally [para. 53, footnote 46].

Mohansky Report - see Ontario, Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden.

Nouveau Petit Robert, Le (1993), p. 898 [para. 57, footnote 48].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Public Inquiries (1992), generally [para. 53, footnote 46, para. 57, footnote 50]; p. 28 [para. 72, footnote 61].

Ontario, Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden (Mohansky Report) (1992), generally [para. 93, footnote 80].

Shorter Oxford Dictionary (8th Ed. 1990), p. 757 [para. 56, footnote 47].

Sopinka, Public Inquiries, Address CIAJ Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba (August 24, 1990), generally [para. 53, footnote 46].

Wilbee Report - see Canada, Parliamentary Standing Committee, Tragedy and Challenge: Canada's Blood System and HIV.

Counsel:

Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., Maureen B. Currie and Kirk F. Stevens, for the applicants, Canadian Red Cross Society et al.;

Stephen T. Goudge, Q.C., Richard P. Stephenson and Monica J.E. McCauley, for the applicant, Connaught Laboratories Limited.;

Philip Spencer, Q.C., and Tim Farrell, for the applicant, Baxter Corp.;

Randal T. Hughes and Tracey N. Patel, for the applicant, Bayer Inc.;

W. Thomas McGrenere, Q.C., for the applicants, Armour Pharmaceutical Company et al.;

Douglas G. Garbig, for the applicant, Craig Anhorn;

Michelle M. Smith, for the applicant, Hon. Dennis Timbrell et al;

William G. Craik, for the applicants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta et al.;

Serge Kronstrom, for the applicants, the Attorney General of Quebec et al.;

Donald J. Rennie and Linda J. Wall, for the applicants, the Attorney General of Canada et al.;

Paul S.A. Lamek, Q.C., Angus MacKinnon, Michele J. Lawford and Melanie Sopinka, for the respondent;

Bonnie Tough and Kathryn Podrebarac, for the intervenor, Canadian Hemophilia Society;

Kenneth Arenson, for the intervenor, Committee for HIV affected and transmitted;

Dawna J. Ring, for the intervenor, Janet Conners (infected spouses and children);

William Selnes, for the intervenor, Canadian Hemophiliacs Infected with HIV;

R. Douglas Elliot and Patricia A. Lefebour, for the intervenor, Canadian Aids Society;

Philip S. Tinkler, for the intervenor, Hepatitis C Survivors' Society;

Pierre R. Lavigne, for the intervenor, the Hepatitis C Group;

Allan D.J. Dick and Lori A. Stoltz, for the intervenor, HIV-T Group (Blood Transfused);

Michel Savonitto and Lyne Beauchamp, for the intervenors, Guy-Henri Godin and Jean-Daniel Couture;

Mark Freiman and Julia Schatz, for the intervenor, Assn. of Hemophilia Clinic Directors of Canada;

Paul C. Nesseth and Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., for the intervenor, Gignac-Sutts Group;

David G. Harvey, for the intervenor, Toronto and Central Ontario-Regional Hemophilia Society.

Solicitors of Record:

Not listed.

This application was heard before Richard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 27, 1996.