Duggan v. Newfoundland et al., (1993) 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 33 (NFTD)

• Judge: Leo D. Barry, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: March 22, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1993), 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 33 (NFTD)

Duggan v. Nfld. (1993), 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 33 (NFTD);

    336 A.P.R. 33

MLB headnote and full text

Elaine (Morgan) Duggan (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland (first defendant) and Margaret MacDonald, Gerry Gover, Vivian Randell, and Anna Dinn being the appointed members of the Welfare Institutions Licensing and Inspection Authority (second defendants)

(1991 St. J. No. 2262)

Indexed As: Duggan v. Newfoundland et al.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Trial Division

Leo D. Barry, J.

March 22, 1993.

Summary:

Duggan planned to sell her boarding home for former psychiatric patients as a going concern. The Welfare Institutions Licensing and Inspection Authority refused to approve the transfer to the prospective purchaser of the licence to operate the home because the home had bedrooms in the basement con­trary to boarding home Regulations. Duggan discontinued operation of the home, alleging that the viability of the operation was threatened when she lost residents because of uncertainty arising from the Authority's decision. She had to sell her property to another party at a loss. Duggan applied for certiorari to quash the Authority's decision.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported 72 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328; 223 A.P.R. 328, allowed the application. Duggan subsequently sued the provincial Crown and the members of the Authority. The Crown brought an interlocu­tory application to determine whether the Authority was a suable entity and, if not, whether the Crown could be sued for dam­ages in tort. The Crown sought an order striking Duggan's statement of claim should the court determine that neither the Author­ity nor the Crown were suable.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported 99 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 56; 315 A.P.R. 56, held that the Authority was not a legal entity capable of being sued, but in certain circumstances its individual members could be sued. The court also stated that although the Authority was not a suable entity, a claim may lie against the Crown for damages in tort if the indi­vidual members of the Authority were found liable. The case then proceeded to trial.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in the decision reported below, held that the Crown was liable for breach of an undertaking that it would not require existing homes to close, without compensa­tion, because of failure to comply with new policies prohibiting the use of basements. The court awarded damages accordingly. Duggan's claim against the individual mem­bers of the Authority was dismissed.

Administrative Law - Topic 1206

Classification of power or function - Powers or functions classified as quasi-judicial - Licensing authority - General - The Welfare Institutions Licensing and Inspection Authority refused to approve the transfer to a prospective purchaser of a licence to operate a boarding home, because the home had bedrooms in the basement contrary to boarding home Reg­ulations - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that in making the decision, the Authority and its mem­bers were acting in a quasi-judicial capac­ity - See paragraph 30.

Crown - Topic 655

Authority of Ministers - Authority to enter agreements on behalf of Crown - The Welfare Institutions Licensing and Inspec­tion Authority refused to approve the transfer of Duggan's boarding home licence to a prospective purchaser because the home had basement bedrooms contrary to boarding home Regulations - Duggan sued the Crown for damages, arguing that the Authority breached an undertaking given by a Crown Minister that existing homes would not have to close, without compensation, because of a failure to meet higher standards imposed by new building codes or regulations - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that Minister's undertaking gave rise to a con­tract between home owners such as Dug­gan, which was breached giving rise to damages - See paragraphs 60 to 88.

Crown - Topic 1001

Contracts with Crown - What constitute - [See Crown - Topic 655 ].

Crown - Topic 1249

Contracts with Crown - Breach by the Crown - Damages - [See Crown - Topic 655 ].

Government Programs - Topic 2203

Housing - Licensing - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 1206 , Crown - Topic 655 and Torts - Topic 9161 ].

Torts - Topic 9161

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials or author­ities - Housing authorities - The Welfare Institutions Licensing and Inspection Au­thority refused to approve the transfer of a boarding home licence to a prospective purchaser because the home did not com­ply with boarding home Regulations - The Authority's decision was quashed - The boarding home owner sued the Authority, claiming damages - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the Authority, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, was not liable in tort for making an error of law, where the error was made in good faith - The Authority's breach of the principles of fundamental justice did not give rise to an award of damages - Further, since the Authority members acted in good faith, they were not personally liable - See paragraphs 30 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Duggan, Re (1988), 72 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328; 223 A.P.R. 328 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

Harris v. Law Society (Alberta), [1936] S.C.R. 88; [1936] 1 D.L.R. 401, refd to. [para. 10].

Partridge v. General Counsel of Medical Education (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Halliwell v. Bethel Rest Home (1965), 55 W.W.R.(N.S.) 47; 56 D.L.R.(2d) 754 (B.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sirros v. Moore, [1974] 3 All E.R. 776 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corp. of Greater Winnipeg (1970), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 470 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Rivard v. Morier, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 716; 64 N.R. 46; 17 Admin. L.R. 230; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Royer v. Mignault (1988), 13 Q.A.C. 39; 50 D.L.R.(4th) 345 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed, [1988] 1 S.C.R. xiii, refd to. [para. 12].

Hlookoff v. Vancouver (City) (1968), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 119; 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 129 (B.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

McGillivary v. Kimber (1915), 52 S.C.R. 146, refd to. [para. 12].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; 16 D.L.R.(2d) 689, refd to. [para. 12].

David v. Cader, [1963] 3 All E.R. 579; [1963] 1 W.L.R. 834 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 103 N.R. 1; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350; 18 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689, refd to. [para. 14].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Coun­cil, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 14].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 14].

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, [1990] 3 W.L.R. 414; 113 N.R. 81; [1990] 2 All E.R. 908; [1991] 1 A.C. 398 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Na­tional Railway Co. et al. v. Norsk Pacific Steam­ship Co. Ltd. and Tug Jervis Crown et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 137 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 15].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., [1970] 2 All E.R. 294; [1970] A.C. 1004 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc. (1993), 147 N.R. 169 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Newfoundland (Attorney General) v. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp., Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission, Royal Trust Co. and General Trust of Canada (1983), 49 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 145 A.P.R. 181 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

DeCosmos v. R., [1883] 1 B.C.R. 26, refd to. [para. 21].

Verreault (J.E.) & Fils Ltée v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 41; 5 N.R. 271; 57 D.L.R.(3d) 403, refd to. [para. 22].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans) (1992), 54 F.T.R. 20 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Transworld Shipping Ltd. v. The Queen, [1976] 1 F.C. 159; 12 N.R. 129; 61 D.L.R.(3d) 304 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Labrecque, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1057; 38 N.R. 1; 125 D.L.R.(3d) 545; 81 C.L.L.C. 14,119, refd to. [para. 27].

CAE Industries Ltd. and CAE Aircraft Ltd. v. Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 129; 61 N.R. 19; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 347 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1985), 20 D.L.R.(4th) 347n (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Baldwin et al. v. Canada (1982), 47 N.R. 81 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [para. 35].

Sebastian v. Saskatchewan (1978), 93 D.L.R.(3d) 154; 7 C.C.L.T. 236 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

McC., In re, [1985] A.C. 528 (H.L.), dist. [para. 40].

Bank of Montreal v. Glendale (Atlantic) Ltd. (1977), 20 N.S.R.(2d) 216; 27 A.P.R. 216; 76 D.L.R.(3d) 303; 13 L.R. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, S.N., 1973, c. 59, sect. 5(6) [para. 9].

Social Services Act, S.N. 1973, c. 31, sect. 3, sect. 7, sect. 13, sect. 21 [para. 68].

Building and Life Safety and Personal Care Standards for Boarding Homes Regulations (Nfld.) - see Welfare Insti­tutions Act Regulations (Nfld.).

Welfare Institutions Act Regulations (Nfld.), Building and Life Safety and Personal Care Standards for Boarding Homes Regulations, 1980, sect. 8 [para. 69]; sect. 31(2)(e) [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dussault and Borgeat, Administrative Law (2nd Ed. 1990), vol. 5, p. 185 [para. 12].

Evans, Janisch, Mullan and Risk, Admin­istrative Law: Cases, Texts and Materials (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 919ff [para. 12].

Fleming, The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 140-144 [para. 14].

Griffith and Street, Principles of Adminis­trative Law (3rd Ed. 1963), p. 271 [para. 22].

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), c. 5 to c. 7 [para. 16]; pp. 148-150 [para. 40]; 189 [para, 25].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), pp. 291-294 [para. 14].

Lordon, Crown Law (1991), c. 9, generally [para. 16], pp. 296 [para, 28]; 297 [paras. 26, 28]; 301 [para. 29]; 321 [paras. 25, 76].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on the Liability of the Crown (1989), p. 20 [para. 12].

Reynolds and Hicks, New Directions for the Civil Liability of Public Authorities in Canada (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 1, p. 17 [para. 14].

Shibley, Liability of Public Authorities in Negligence, [1983] Spec. Lect. L.S.U.C. 255, generally [para. 16].

Street, The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1988), pp. 440, 441 [para. 14].

Wright, C.A., Linden and Klar, Canadian Tort Law (9th Ed. 1990), p. 12-1 [para. 13].

Counsel:

John Dawson, for Elaine Duggan;

Veva Moulton, for Her Majesty The Queen;

J. Vernon French, Q.C., and Donna Bal­lard, for the second defendants.

This matter was heard on October 19 to 23, 1992, before Leo D. Barry, J., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered the following judgment on March 22, 1993.