Canada Post Corp. v. G3 Worldwide (Canada) Inc., 2007 ONCA 348

• Judge: Weiler, Feldman and MacFarland, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: November 17, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2007 ONCA 348;(2007), 224 O.A.C. 206 (CA)

Can. Post v. G3 Worldwide Inc. (2007), 224 O.A.C. 206 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.018

Canada Post Corporation (applicant/respondent) v. G3 Worldwide (Canada) Inc. c.o.b. Spring and Spring Canada (respondent/appellant)

G3 Worldwide (Canada) Inc. o/a Spring and Spring Canada (respondent/appellant) v. Canada Post Corporation (applicant/respondent)

(C44456; C45519; 2007 ONCA 348)

Indexed As: Canada Post Corp. v. G3 Worldwide (Canada) Inc.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Feldman and MacFarland, JJ.A.

May 8, 2007.

Summary:

Canada Post Corp. (CP) applied for a declaration that the operations of the respondent (Spring) involving the collection, transmittal and delivery of mail from senders in Canada to overseas locations violated the exclusive privilege granted to CP under s. 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. It sought a permanent injunction restraining Spring from carrying on such operations. Spring moved to quash CP's notice of application, arguing that CP could not seek to enforce its privilege by way of civil proceedings and that CP had no cause of action.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2005] O.T.C. 1049, dismissed the motion. CP's application proceeded.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2006] O.T.C. 463, allowed the application and granted CP a permanent injunction. Spring appealed both Superior Court decisions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Equity - Topic 1003

Equitable relief - General - When refused - Canada Post Corp. (CP) applied for a declaration that the operations of the respondent (Spring) involving the collection, transmittal and delivery of mail from senders in Canada to overseas locations violated the exclusive privilege granted to CP under s. 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act - It sought a permanent injunction restraining Spring from carrying on such operations - CP had been aware of the impugned operations of Spring and its predecessor since 1990 - Spring argued that it was entitled to raise the equitable defences of estoppel, laches and delay - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with an application judge that Spring could not use equitable defences to prevent the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining its infringement of s. 14(1) of the Act - The Act was a public policy statute - Equitable defences could not be applied against the Crown or its agents to prevent the operation of a statutory scheme which imposed an express statutory duty - Therefore, Spring could not rely on CP's delay to defend against the application - Further, estoppel could not apply against the Crown or its agents to prevent the operation of a statute - See paragraphs 42 to 48.

Equity - Topic 2002

Equitable defences - General - Application of - [See Equity - Topic 1003 ].

Equity - Topic 2069

Equitable defences - Laches - Public bodies - [See Equity - Topic 1003 ].

Injunctions - Topic 746

Granting an injunction - Bars - Delay or acquiescence - [See Equity - Topic 1003 ].

Injunctions - Topic 7075

Particular matters - Violation of statute - General - [See Practice - Topic 241 ].

Practice - Topic 73

Actions - Commencement of - Choice of method of commencement of proceedings - Action v. application - Canada Post Corp. (CP) applied for a declaration that the operations of the respondent (Spring) involving the collection, transmittal and delivery of mail from senders in Canada to overseas locations violated the exclusive privilege granted to CP under s. 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act - It sought a permanent injunction restraining Spring from carrying on such operations - Spring argued that CP's application should be converted to an action - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the applications judge correctly determined that the proceedings could be brought by way of application - There were no relevant material facts in dispute which would preclude the matter proceeding by way of application - See paragraph 41.

Practice - Topic 241

Persons who can sue and be sued - Agencies of government - Canada Post (i.e., post office) - Canada Post Corp. (CP) applied for, inter alia, a declaration that the operations of the respondent (Spring) involving the collection, transmittal and delivery of mail from senders in Canada to overseas locations violated the exclusive privilege granted to CP under s. 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act - Spring moved to quash CP's notice of application, arguing that CP had no cause of action and that s. 14 did not permit CP to enforce its exclusive privilege by way of civil proceedings (i.e., declaration, permanent injunction, damages reference) - Spring argued that the Act (s. 60) only permitted CP to request that the Attorney General invoke criminal proceedings to protect CP's exclusive privilege - The motions judge dismissed the motion - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Spring's appeal - Nothing in the Act specifically gave CP the right to seek an injunction for breach of s. 14(1), nor was there anything that prohibited such a proceeding - While the criminal sanction in s. 60 could penalize the breach, that remedy alone was not sufficient to restore CP's exclusive privilege - Without more, a party like Spring would be able to carry on in breach of the exclusive privilege granted merely by paying whatever fine or other penalty might be meted out for the breach - Where a statute provided a specific right, as s. 14 did, the recipient of that right had to have the ability to enforce it - CP had the right to seek an injunction against anyone who breached or infringed s. 14(1) - See paragraphs 12 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9, refd to. [para. 12].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 12].

Keays v. Honda Canada Inc. (2006), 216 O.A.C. 3; 274 D.L.R.(4th) 107 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [2007] 368 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 4].

Ex parte Island Record Ltd., [1978] Ch. 122, refd to. [para. 25].

Societe Canadienne des Postes v. Postpar Inc. (1988), 20 C.I.P.R. 180 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Consignia plc v. Hays plc et al., [2002] L.T. 36; 2001 WL 1479742 (Ch.), dist. [para. 32].

Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd. v. Institut des Vins (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 120 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Sturdy Truck Body (1972) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (1995), 95 F.T.R. 270 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hydro Electric Commission of Kenora (Town) v. Vacationland Dairy Co-operative Ltd., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 80; 162 N.R. 241; 68 O.A.C. 241, dist. [para. 45].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104, dist. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Post Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10, sect. 14(1) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Brian J. Gover and Brendan Van Niejenhuis, for the appellant;

Robb C. Heintzman, R. Brendan Bissell and Marina E. Sampson, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on November 17, 2006, before Weiler, Feldman and MacFarland, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the court was delivered by MacFarland, J.A., on May 8, 2007.