Dicaire v. Montreal Airport, (2004) 267 F.T.R. 155 (FC)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 15, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 267 F.T.R. 155 (FC);2004 FC 1640

Dicaire v. Montreal Airport (2004), 267 F.T.R. 155 (FC)

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: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.006

Alain Dicaire (demandeur) v. Aéroports de Montréal (défenderesse)

(T-1491-04; 2004 CF 1640; 2004 FC 1640)

Indexed As: Dicaire v. Montreal Airport

Federal Court

Morneau, Prothonotary

November 22, 2004.

Summary:

The applicant's agricultural leases with the federal government were assigned to the respondent. The applicant defaulted on the rental payments. The respondent obtained a judgment by which the agricultural leases were cancelled and subsequently obtained a writ of eviction and possession. The applicant applied for judicial review, seeking an order of mandamus compelling the respondent to implement the "Starbush Management: A Guide to Maintaining Tree Health" and apply the standard practice in maple growing to the other existing tenants of agricultural leases with the respondent. The respondent moved to strike the application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court allowed the motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 3505

Judicial review - Mandamus - General - Status to apply - The applicant's agricultural leases with the federal government were assigned to the respondent - The applicant defaulted on the rental payments - The respondent obtained a judgment by which the agricultural leases were cancelled and subsequently obtained a writ of eviction and possession - The applicant applied for judicial review, seeking an order of mandamus compelling the respondent to implement the "Starbush Management: A Guide to Maintaining Tree Health" (Guide) and apply the standard practice in maple growing to the other existing tenants of agricultural leases with the respondent - The respondent moved to strike the application - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court allowed the motion - The applicant did not have standing to bring the application for judicial review - The day of the judgment cancelling the leases, or at the least, the day the applicant was evicted from the leased premises, he was no longer "directly affected" within the meaning of s. 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act - Further, the application for mandamus had very little chance of success - The respondent had no duty to act where the Guide was a guide and nothing more.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3505 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.4

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - Standing - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3505 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 211; 157 F.T.R. 123 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Shiell v. Atomic Energy Control Board (Can.) et al. (1995), 98 F.T.R. 75 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(1) [para. 23].

Counsel:

Alain Dicaire, on his own behalf;

Vincent Thibeault and Nicolas Courcy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lavery, de Billy, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on November 15, 2004, at Montreal, Quebec, before Morneau, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on November 22, 2004.