Devloo v. Canada, (1991) 129 N.R. 39 (FCA)

• Judge: Heald, Stone and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 21, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 129 N.R. 39 (FCA)

Devloo v. Can. (1991), 129 N.R. 39 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant/defendant) v. Maurice Cyril Devloo (respondent/plaintiff)

(A-171-90)

Indexed As: Devloo v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Heald, Stone and Décary, JJ.A.

May 21, 1991.

Summary:

Devloo, the plaintiff, was a grain producer. Econ Consulting was a grain dealer licensed under the Canada Grain Act. Devloo delivered grain to Econ "at a price to be fixed at a future date". Before Devloo was paid, Econ went bankrupt. Neither the secu­rity posted by Econ under the Canada Grain Act, nor the bankruptcy proceeds, satisfied Deloo's claim against Econ. Devloo com­menced an action against the federal Crown for damages, alleging that the Cana­dian Grain Commission and its employees negli­gently failed to ensure that Econ posted adequate security to meet its liabilities.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 33 F.T.R. 1, allowed the action and assessed damages accordingly. The Attorney General of Canada appealed respecting liability and damages and the plaintiff cross-appealed respecting interest.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal.

Crown - Topic 1563

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Breach of statutory duty - A federally licensed grain dealer (Econ) went bankrupt, owing money to a grain producer (Devloo) - Neither the security posted by Econ under the Canada Grain Act, nor the bankruptcy proceeds, satisfied Devloo's claim against Econ - Devloo sued the federal Crown, alleging negligence by the Canadian Grain Commission and its employees - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed Devloo's action, holding that the Commission was negligent in breaching its statutory duty to protect the producer's interest and in failing to see that Econ had proper security - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Crown - Topic 1712

Torts by and against Crown - Action against Crown for breach of a statutory duty - Remedies - Damages - A federally licensed grain dealer (Econ) went bank­rupt, owing money to a grain producer (Devloo) - Devloo sued the federal Crown, alleging negligence by the Cana­dian Grain Commission and its employees in carrying out its duties to protect pro­ducers under the Canada Grain Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the action and assessed damages accordingly - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that Devloo's damages were recoverable, notwithstanding that they were purely economic.

Damages - Topic 531

Limits of compensatory damages - Re­moteness - Torts - Recoverable damages - Pure economic loss - [See Crown - Topic 1712 ].

Interest - Topic 5148

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Torts - Crown - Claims against - A federally licensed grain dealer went bank­rupt owing money to a grain producer - The grain producer sued the Crown, alleg­ing negligence by the Canadian Grain Commission and its employees - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the action and assessed damages, including interest - The Federal Court of Appeal varied the judgment respecting calculation of interest - See paragraphs 74 to 77.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3703.1

Marketing of agricultural products - Grain - Canadian Grain Commission - Negli­gence - [See Crown - Topic 1563 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 3703.1

Marketing of agricultural products - Grain - Canadian Grain Commission - Negli­gence - [See Crown - Topic 1712 ].

Cases Noticed:

Stein Estate v. Ship "Kathy K", [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 37].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 37].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Gov­ern­ment of Canada, [1981] 2 F.C. 212; 34 N.R. 74 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Govern­ment of Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 47].

Anns v. Merton Lon­don Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 50, 51].

Murphy v. Brent­wood District Coun­cil, [1990] A.C. 414; 113 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 50, 66, footnote 10].

Yeu v. Hong Kong (At­tor­ney General), [1988] A.C. 175; 82 N.R. 321 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 50, 66, footnote 10].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 50, 51, 53].

Davis v. Radcliffe, [1990] 2 All E.R. 536 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 50, 66, footnote 10].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [paras. 61, 62].

Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Author­ity, [1988] 1 A.C. 1074; 87 N.R. 140 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 61].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 63].

Riv­tow Mar­ine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 66].

Hof­strand Farms Limited v. B.D.C. Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 228; 65 N.R. 261, refd to. [para. 66].

Cummer-Yonge In­vest­ments Ltd. v. Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 221; 4 N.R. 574, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 9].

Haig v. Bam­ford et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 466; 9 N.R. 43, refd to. [para. 66, foot­note 9].

Central Trust Co. v. Ra­fuse and Cor­don, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 9].

Junior Books Ltd. v. Veitchi Co. Ltd., [1983] 1 A.C. 500 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Bowen v. Para­mount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd., [1977] 1 N.Z.L.R. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Peabody Donation Fund (Gov­ernors of) v. Sir Lind­say Park­inson & Co. Ltd., [1985] A.C. 210 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Cur­ran v. Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Assoc., [1987] A.C. 718; 82 N.R. 332 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66, foot­note 10].

D. & F. Estates Ltd. et al. v. Church Com­missioners for Eng­land et al., [1989] A.C. 177; 94 N.R. 286 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman and Others, [1990] 2 A.C. 605, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Candle­wood Navi­gation Corp. Ltd. v. Mit­sui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., [1986] A.C. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Leigh and Silla­van Ltd. v. Aliakmon Ship­ping Co., [1986] A.C. 785; 66 N.R. 60 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Grain Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 7, sect. 2(17) [para. 20]; sect. 2(19) [paras. 15, 50]; sect. 2(51), sect. 2(52) [para. 20]; sect. 3, sect. 5(1), sect. 6(2), sect. 7(1), sect. 8, sect. 10 [para. 8]; sect. 11 [para. 10]; sect. 35(1) [paras. 11, 12]; sect. 35(2), sect. 36 [para. 11]; sect. 36(1)(c) [paras. 15, 50, 51]; sect. 36(2) [paras. 13, 43]; sect. 36(4), sect. 36(5) [para. 13]; sect. 38(1) [paras. 14, 43, 44]; sect. 38(2) [paras. 14, 15, 50]; sect. 68(1), sect. 69(1), sect. 77 [para. 16]; sect. 77(1)(c) [para. 45].

Canada Grain Act Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 889, sect. 18, sect. 25 [para. 12]; sect. 19, sect. 24 [para. 16].

Crown Liability Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-38, sect. 3(1)(a), sect. 4(2) [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cooke, An Impossible Distinction (1991), 107 L.Q. Rev. 46 , generally [para. 67, footnote 11].

Fleming, Requiem for Anns (1990), 106 L.Q. Rev. 525, generally [para. 67, foot­note 11].

Legal Research Foundation, University of Auckland, Negligence After Murphy v. Brentwood District Council (March 7, 1991), generally [para. 67, footnote 11].

Counsel:

Brian Hay and Karen Molle, for the ap­pel­lant;

George Van Den Bosch and Paul L. Jen­son, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant.

Pitbaldo, Hoskin, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 17 and 18, 1991, before Stone, Heald and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Stone, J.A., on May 21, 1991.