Doucet et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2007) 327 N.B.R.(2d) 329 (TD)

• Judge: Baird, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: August 23, 2007
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2007), 327 N.B.R.(2d) 329 (TD);2007 NBQB 369

Doucet v. Can. (A.G.) (2007), 327 N.B.R.(2d) 329 (TD);

  327 R.N.-B.(2e) 329; 840 A.P.R. 329

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.014

Renvoi temp.: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.014

Kenneth Doucet, James L. Gregan, Alvin McIntyre, Adélard Savoie, Oswald J. Savoie, Paul James Scott, Kenneth Williston and Theodore B. Williston (plaintiffs) v. The Attorney General of Canada (defendant)

(N/C/103/04; 2007 NBQB 369; 2007 NBBR 369)

Indexed As: Doucet et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Répertorié: Doucet et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Miramichi

Baird, J.

November 9, 2007.

Summary:

Résumé:

In 1992, with the commercial salmon fishery closed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set up a voluntary buy-back program for licences. The Minister left the door open to reopen the fishery if stocks allowed it and give first priority to those who kept and renewed their licences during the closure period. The plaintiffs, lifelong fishers, elected to hold on to their licences. In 2003, believing that the Minister never had any intention to reopen the commercial salmon fishery, the plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of Canada in damages for misrepresentation.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the action. The plaintiffs failed to prove their case (see paragraphs 1 to 110), and the action was statute barred (see paragraphs 111 to 116).

Crown - Topic 1576

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Negligent advice or misrepresentation - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2703 ].

Crown - Topic 2243

Crown privilege or prerogative - Production of documents - Certificate of Crown Minister or Privy Council Clerk - Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act protected "information" from disclosure, provided that the Clerk of the Privy Council certified that the disclosure of those documents would be a violation of Cabinet or Ministerial privilege - In the present case, the plaintiffs asked the court to draw an adverse inference from the fact that portions of certain documents disclosed after the s. 39 process had been blacked out - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, declined the request, absent evidence of a cover up, bad faith or abuse of authority - See paragraphs 72 to 78.

Evidence - Topic 4143

Witnesses - Privilege - Privileged topics - Official secrets, state or public documents - [See Crown - Topic 2243 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 162

Fisheries - Regulation - Persons empowered to regulate - [See Fish and Game - Topic 237 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 222

Right to fish - Licensing - Nature of licence - [See Fish and Game - Topic 237 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 237

Right to fish - Licensing - Licence buy back - In 1992, with the commercial salmon fishery closed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set up a voluntary buy-back program for licences - The Minister left the door open to reopen the fishery, if stocks allowed it, and give first priority to those who kept and renewed their licences during the closure period - The plaintiffs, lifelong fishers, elected to hold on to their licences - In 2003, believing that the Minister never had any intention to reopen the commercial salmon fishery, the plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of Canada in damages for misrepresentation - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the action - The court discussed the Minister's authority respecting fishing licences under s. 7 of the Fisheries Act (Can.) and held that there was no obligation on the Minister to compensate any fisher - The Minister could have continued the moratorium, and allowed the licences to expire through attrition - There were no property rights that attached to fishing licences - The Minister had an absolute discretion to manage fisheries, weighing the economic, social and other factors - See paragraphs 79 to 86.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2533

Misrepresentation - Elements - Special relationships - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2703 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2535

Misrepresentation - Elements - Reliance - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2703 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2703

Misrepresentation - What constitutes misrepresentation - Falsity - General - In 1992, with the commercial salmon fishery closed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set up a voluntary buy-back program for licences - The Minister left the door open to reopen the fishery, if stocks allowed it, and give first priority to those who kept and renewed their licences during the closure period - The plaintiffs, lifelong fishers, elected to hold on to their licences - In 2003, believing that the Minister never had any intention to reopen the commercial salmon fishery, the plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of Canada in damages for misrepresentation - They alleged that the representations made to them were false and that the defendant omitted to tell them that the fishery would never reopen - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the action, holding as follows: (1) There was a special relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant; (2) the representations made to the plaintiffs were true, accurate and not misleading; (3) the Minister did not act negligently nor breach his duty of care toward the plaintiffs; (4) the plaintiffs took a calculated risk, and lost; and (5) there was no evidence to substantiate detrimental reliance - See paragraphs 1 to 110.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2705

Misrepresentation - What constitutes misrepresentation - Falsity - By omission - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2703 ].

Practice - Topic 7029.3

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Delay or prolonging proceedings - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, declined to award costs to the successful defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, because of a failure to follow procedural rules with respect to disclosure of documents - There was a lack of timely disclosure - This was troubling and unacceptable - Defendant counsel were full-time dedicated employees of the Government of Canada, with access to resources - Their failure to make timely disclosure was not explained and was inexcusable - The court also ordered the defendant to pay all party and party costs incurred by the plaintiffs to pursue proper disclosure of documents pursuant to the Rules of Court - See paragraphs 117 to 138, 140.

Practice - Topic 7034

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - The attorney general - [See Practice - Topic 7029.3 ].

Practice - Topic 7103

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Conduct by party (incl. breach of court rules) - [See Practice - Topic 7029.3 ].

Practice - Topic 7103

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Conduct by party (incl. breach of court rules) - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ordered the successful defendant to pay the plaintiffs for costs incurred for having summoned witnesses who were, in the end, called by the defendant to testify - See paragraphs 121 to 139.

Chasse et pêche - Cote 162

Pêcheries - Réglementation - Personnes autorisées à réglementer - [Voir Fish and Game - Topic 162 ].

Chasse et pêche - Cote 222

Droit de pêche - Permis - Nature du permis - [Voir Fish and Game - Topic 222 ].

Chasse et pêche - Cote 237

Droit de pêche - Permis - Rachat des permis - [Voir Fish and Game - Topic 237 ].

Couronne - Cote 1576

Délits civils par et contre la Couronne - Négligence par la Couronne - Conseils négligents ou assertion inexacte - [Voir Crown - Topic 1576 ].

Couronne - Cote 2243

Privilège ou prérogative de la Couronne - Production de documents - Certificat d'un ministre de la Couronne ou du greffier du Conseil privé - [Voir Crown - Topic 2243 ].

Fraude et assertion inexacte - Cote 2533

Assertion inexacte - Eléments - Relations spéciales - [Voir Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2533 ].

Fraude et assertion inexacte - Cote 2535

Assertion inexacte - Eléments - Confiance - [Voir Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2535 ].

Fraude et assertion inexacte - Cote 2703

Assertion inexacte - Eléments constitutifs - Fausseté - Généralités - [Voir Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2703 ].

Fraude et assertion inexacte - Cote 2705

Assertion inexacte - Eléments constitutifs - Fausseté - Par omission - [Voir Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2705 ].

Preuve - Cote 4143

Témoins - Privilège - Renseignements privilégiés - Secrets officiels, documents d'Etat ou documents publics - [Voir Evidence - Topic 4143 ].

Procédure - Cote 7029.3

Dépens - Dépens entre parties - Droit aux dépens entre parties - Partie gagnante - Exceptions - Délai ou prolongation des procédures - [Voir Practice - Topic 7029.3 ].

Procédure - Cote 7034

Dépens - Dépens entre parties - Droit aux dépens entre parties - Le Procureur général - [Voir Practice - Topic 7034 ].

Procédure - Cote 7103

Dépens - Dépens entre parties - Ordonnances spéciales - Conduite répréhensible d'une partie (y compris la violation des règles de procédure) - [Voir Practice - Topic 7103 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 16].

Keleher et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (1989), 26 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), dist. [para. 38].

Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 51].

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. 74].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12; 206 N.R. 363, consd. [para. 80].

Joliffe v. Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 511 (T.D.), consd. [para. 84].

Association des Senneurs du Golfe Inc. et al. v. Canada (Ministre des Pêches et Océans) et al. (1999), 175 F.T.R. 25 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 85].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), consd. [para. 99].

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 100].

Gauthier v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 225 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 578 A.P.R. 211 (C.A.), consd. [para. 100].

Allison v. Noranda Inc. et al. (2001), 239 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 619 A.P.R. 211 (C.A.), consd. [para. 100].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 100].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268, consd. [para. 100].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

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, refd to. [para. 116].

Bishop v. Carleton Cooperative Ltd. (1996), 176 N.B.R.(2d) 206; 447 A.P.R. 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Statutes Noticed:

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 7 [para. 79].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Christopher Stewart, for the plaintiffs;

James Klaassen and Susan Taylor, for the defendant.

This action was heard on July 16 to 27, and August 23, 2007, by Baird, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Miramichi, who delivered the following decision on November 9, 2007.