Cape Breton (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2008 NSSC 111

• Judge: Murphy, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 28, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2008 NSSC 111;(2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 21 (SC)

Cape Breton v. N.S. (A.G.) (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 21 (SC);

    853 A.P.R. 21

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.050

Cape Breton Regional Municipality (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia (defendant)

(SN 266560; 2008 NSSC 111)

Indexed As: Cape Breton (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Murphy, J.

April 23, 2008.

Summary:

The Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) applied for a declaration that the Legislature and the Government of Nova Scotia had breached the commitments of promoting equal opportunities, furthering economic development and providing essential public services found in s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Attorney General replied with a motion to strike CBRM's proceeding on the ground that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. In the alternative, the Attorney General sought the conversion of CBRM's application into an action.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the Attorney General's motion and struck CBRM's application. CBRM's proceeding did not raise a justiciable issue and hence, did not raise a reasonable cause of action: see paragraphs 1 to 59. Even if a justiciable issue had been raised, it was unlikely that a declaration of breach would have been an available remedy in this case: see paragraphs 60 to 63. However, if a justiciable issue had been raised respecting the economic development question, CBRM would have had standing to bring its proceeding: see paragraphs 68 to 74.

Constitutional Law - Topic 23

General - Raising constitutional issues - Requirement of justiciability - The Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) sought a declaration that the Legislature and the Government of Nova Scotia had breached the commitments of promoting equal opportunities, furthering economic development and providing essential public services found in s. 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court struck the proceeding as not raising a justiciable issue and hence, not disclosing a reasonable cause of action - The pleadings did not allege material facts that created an informed environment to have the court determine whether s. 36 could possibly have been intended to give CBRM enforceable rights - Section 52(1), which provided that the Constitution of Canada was the supreme law of Canada, did not make the s. 36 commitment judicially enforceable constitutional law - The Nova Scotia Legislature's power to make and implement law was not restricted by the s. 36 commitments, as indicated in the preamble to s. 36 - CBRM had not challenged legislation - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 23 ].

Cases Noticed:

Haughn v. Halifax, [1998] N.S.J. No. 196, refd to. [para. 8].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, consd. [paras. 13, 66].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 13].

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

Sable Offshore Energy Inc. et al. v. Ameron International Corp. et al. (2007), 255 N.S.R.(2d) 164; 814 A.P.R. 164; 2007 NSCA 70, consd. [para. 15].

CGU Insurance Co. of Canada v. Noble et al. (2003), 218 N.S.R.(2d) 49; 687 A.P.R. 49; 2003 NSCA 102, consd. [para. 16].

Carley Estate v. Allied Signal Inc. et al. (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 318; 148 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Lamey v. Wentworth Valley Developments Ltd. et al. (1999), 175 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 534 A.P.R. 356; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, consd. [para. 23].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 23].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 23].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) - see Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.).

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, consd. [paras. 23, 47].

Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. v. Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 141; 16 W.A.C. 141; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 554 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

Canadian Bar Association v. British Columbia et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 796 (S.C.), affd. (2008), 252 B.C.A.C. 76; 422 W.A.C. 76 (C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791; 335 N.R. 25; 2005 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 43].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2003 SCC 62, dist. [para. 43].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 48].

Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 3 F.C. 185; 251 N.R. 318 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

Babcock et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3; 289 N.R. 341; 168 B.C.A.C. 50; 275 W.A.C. 50, consd. [para. 48].

Auckland Harbour Board v. R., [1924] A.C. 318; 93 L.J.P.C. 126 (P.C.), consd. [para. 49].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128, refd to. [para. 54].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81; 38 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 59].

McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority, [1982] 2 All E.R. 771 (C.A.), consd. [para. 66].

Charlottetown (City) et al. v. Prince Edward Island et al. (1998), 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 80; 517 A.P.R. 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 74].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 36 [para. 3]; sect. 52(1) [para. 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, vol. 8, p. 1-75, para. 1:7310 [para. 61].

Dicey, A.V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th Ed. 1959), generally [para. 48].

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 1997) (Looseleaf Supp.), vol. 1, pp. 6-10, [para. 38]; 12-1 [para. 48]; 15-23 [para. 54]; 33-2 [para. 38]; vol. 2, 38-9 [para. 54].

Nader, Aymen, Providing Essential Services: Canada's Constitutional Committment under s. 36 (1997), 19 Dalhousie L.J. 306, generally [para. 41].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies In Canada (2006 Looseleaf Update), p. 2-32 [para. 39].

Sossin, L.M., Boundaries of Judicial Review: the Law of Justiciability in Canada (1999), pp. 2 [para. 21]; 191 [para. 40].

Sossin, L.M., Salvaging the Welfare State?: The Prospects of Judicial Review for the Canada Health & Social Transfer (1998), 21 Dal. L.J. 14, generally [para. 40].

Counsel:

Neil Finkelstein and Catherine Beagan-Flood, for the plaintiff;

Alex Cameron, for the defendant.

This motion was heard on November 28, 2007, by Murphy, J, of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, with final written submissions filed on March 11, 2008. Murphy, J., delivered the following decision on April 23, 2008.