CSL Group Inc. et al. v. Canada, (1998) 232 N.R. 25 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: July 03, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 232 N.R. 25 (FCA)

CSL Group Inc. v. Can. (1998), 232 N.R. 25 (FCA)

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: [1998] N.R. TBEd. JL.031

Le Groupe CSL Inc. and Canada Steamship Lines Inc. (appelantes/demanderesses) v. Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada (intimée/défenderesse)

(A-1016-96)

Indexed As: CSL Group Inc. et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.

July 3, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff shipowners sued the Crown for damages caused by delays in transit times in the St. Lawrence River system during a Coast Guard strike during Novem­ber and December 1989. The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown negligently failed to designate employees required to ensure the safety and security of the public during the strike pursu­ant to s. 78 of the Public Service Staff Rela­tions Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 124 F.T.R. 1, dismissed the plaintiffs' action, but provisionally assessed damages. The plain­tiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. There was no legal basis for an action against the Crown.

Crown - Topic 1527

Torts by and against Crown - Liability of Crown for acts of servants - When Crown liable - The plaintiff shipowners sued the federal Crown for damages for transit delays in the St. Lawrence River system caused during a winter Coast Guard strike - The Crown (Treasury Board) was alleg­edly negligent in failing to designate Coast Guard personnel as essential employees under s. 78 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (filed designation one day after mandatory 20 day limit) - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the action - The federal Crown's only duty was to ensure the protection and security of the public - There was no duty to main­tain the seaway in perfect operating condi­tion and no duty to file a list of designated employees - The late filing was no differ­ent from a refusal to file, which was a policy decision not subject to review - Accordingly, the late filing could not support an action against the Crown.

Crown - Topic 1563

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Breach of statutory duty - [See Crown - Topic 1527 ].

Crown - Topic 1571.2

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Failure to designate essential employees during labour dispute - [See Crown - Topic 1527 ].

Crown - Topic 1575

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Docks, wharves, shipping lanes, etc. - [See Crown - Topic 1527 ].

Crown - Topic 1621

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - When available - General - [See Crown - Topic 1527 ].

Crown - Topic 1701

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown for breach of statutory duty - General - [See Crown - Topic 1527 ].

Cases Noticed:

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1989] 2 F.C. 445 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Commission Appeal Board, [1989] 3 F.C. 585; 39 N.R. 533 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO International Ter­minal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

Kibale v. Canada (1992), 58 F.T.R. 199 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canada v. Maritime Group (Canada) Inc. et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 131; 58 F.T.R. 253 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Gingras v. Canada, [1994] 2 F.C. 734; 165 N.R. 101 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., [1970] 2 All E.R. 294 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35, sect. 79 [para. 6, footnote 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Linden, Tort Liability of Governments for Negligence, 53 The Advocate 535, gen­erally [para. 15, footnote 7].

Counsel:

David F.H. Marler, for the appellants;

Raymond Piché, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

David F.H. Marler, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 9, 1998, at Montreal, Quebec, before Marceau, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On July 3, 1998, Marceau, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.