Finlay v. Canada, (1986) 71 N.R. 338 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Citation: (1986), 71 N.R. 338 (SCC),2 ACWS (3d) 277,33 DLR (4th) 321,JE 87-100,71 NR 338,23 Admin LR 197,[1986] CarswellNat 104,[1986] ACS no 73,[1987] 1 WWR 603,[1986] 2 SCR 607,[1986] SCJ No 73 (QL),8 CHRR 3789,1986 CanLII 6 (SCC),17 CPC (2d) 289
• Date: 18 December 1986

Finlay v. Can. (1986), 71 N.R. 338 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Finlay v. Minister of Finance of Canada, Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada and Attorney General of Canada

(No. 17775)

Indexed As: Finlay v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

December 18, 1986.

Summary:

Finlay contested the legality of payments under the Canada Assistance Plan by the Minister of Finance of Canada to the Province of Manitoba. Finlay alleged that the payments were in breach of the conditions and undertakings to which the payments were subject by s. 7 of the Canada Assistance Plan.

Finlay sued for a declaration that the federal cost-sharing payments were illegal and for an injunction to stop them. The Minister applied to strike out Finlay's statement of claim on the ground that Finlay lacked standing and that the statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out the statement of claim and Finlay appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order striking out the statement of claim (See [1984] 1 F.C. 516; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 704; 48 N.R. 127). The Minister appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that Finlay should be recognized as a matter of judicial discretion, as having public interest standing to bring his action.

Practice - Topic 212

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Time for determination of status questions - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the question whether an issue of standing to sue could be properly determined as a preliminary matter in a particular case was a matter of judicial discretion, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case - It depended on the nature of the issues raised and whether the court had sufficient material before it, in the way of allegations of fact, considerations of law, and argument, for a proper under standing at a preliminary stage of the nature of the interest asserted - See paragraph 16.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Respecting validity of administrative action taken by government officials or public body - An individual contested the legality of payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan by the Minister of Finance of Canada to the Province of Manitoba, alleging that the payments were illegal because of provincial non-compliance with the conditions and undertakings imposed by the Canada Assistance Plan - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the relationship between the prejudice allegedly caused to the individual by the provincial non-compliance with conditions and undertakings imposed by the Canada Assistance Plan was not a sufficient causative relationship for the individual to have standing to bring such an action under the general rule to the effect that a person could sue without joining the Attorney General where a private right was interfered with or where the person suffered special damage peculiar to himself - See paragraph 22.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Respecting validity of administrative action taken by government officials or public body - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the general rule to the effect that a plaintiff could sue without joining the Attorney General where there was interference with a private right or where the individual suffered special damage peculiar to himself from the interference with the public right contained an implicit requirement that there be a directness or causal relationship between the alleged prejudice or grievance and the challenged action - See paragraph 20.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Respecting validity of administrative action taken by government officials or public body - An individual challenged the administrative validity of payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan by the Minister of Finance of Canada to the Province of Manitoba because of provincial noncompliance with conditions and undertakings imposed by the Canada Assistance Plan - The Minister alleged that the individual had no status to bring such an action - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the recognition of public interest standing, as a matter of judicial discretion, could be extended to cases involving a non-constitutional challenge by an action for a declaration to the statutory authority for public expenditure or other administrative action - See paragraph 31.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Respecting validity of administrative action taken by government officials or public body - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in cases involving non-constitutional is sues of the limits of statutory authority where an issue was appropriate for judicial determination, the courts should not decline to determine it on the ground that because of its policy context or implications it was better left for review and determination by the legislative or executive branches of government - See paragraph 33.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Respecting validity of administrative action taken by government officials or public body - An individual challenged the administrative validity of federal cost-sharing payments under the Canada Assistance Plan made by the Minister of Finance of Canada to the Province of Manitoba be cause of provincial non- compliance with conditions and undertakings imposed by the Canada Assistance Plan - The Minister alleged that the individual had no status to bring such an action - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the criteria for the exercise of judicial discretion to recognize public interest standing to bring an action for a declaration and held that the individual should not be denied standing to bring his action because no prior request was made to the Attorney General to intervene - While such a request might be necessary in certain cases to show that there was no other way in which the issue could be brought before a court, it was not necessary in a case where it was clear that the Attorney General would not have consented to the institution of proceedings - See paragraph 34.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Respecting validity of administrative action taken by government officials or public body - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the exceptional recognition of public interest standing, as a matter of judicial discretion, applied to injunctive as well as declaratory relief - Whether a plaintiff should be granted either declaratory or injunctive relief in a particular case was a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised according to criteria and considerations particular to the form of relief sought - See paragraph 37.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose cause of action - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected a defendant's allegation that the plaintiff's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff could not succeed with his contentions - See paragraph 38.

Cases Noticed:

Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, appld. [para. 14].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 19 N.R. 570; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, appld. [para. 14].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331, appld. [para. 14].

Carota v. Jamieson, [1977] 1 F.C. 19, refd to. [para. 16].

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., [1982] A.C. 617, refd to. [para. 16].

Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v. Commonwealth of Australia (1980), 28 A.L.R. 257, refd to. [para. 16].

London County Council v. Attorney-General, [1902] A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 17].

Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, [1978] A.C. 435, refd to. [para. 17].

Boyce v. Paddington Borough Council, [1903] 1 Ch. 109, refd to. [para. 18].

London Passenger Transport Board v. Moscrop, [1942] A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 19].

Cowan v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1966] 2 O.R. 309, refd to. [para. 19].

Rosenberg v. Grand River Conservation Authority (1976), 69 D.L.R.(3d) 384, refd to. [para. 19].

Smith v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1924] S.C.R. 331, refd to. [para. 19].

Flast v. Cohen (1968), 392 U.S. 83, refd to. [para. 21].

Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973), 410 U.S. 614, refd to. [para. 21].

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), 341 U.S. 123, refd to. [para. 21].

Lofstrom and Murphy, Re (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 120 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

LeBlanc v. City of Transcona, [1974] S.C.R. 1261, refd to. [para. 22].

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization (1976), 426 U.S. 26, refd to. [para. 22].

MacIlreith v. Hart (1908), 39 S.C.R 657, refd to. [para. 23].

Operation Dismantle Inc. v. Canada, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Assistance Plan, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-1, sect. 2 [para. 7]; sect. 4 [para. 5]; sect. 6(2)(a) [para. 5]; sect. 7(1) [paras. 4, 8, 33, 36]; sect. 9(1)(g) [para. 8].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, sect. 18 [para. 12].

Federal Court Rules, C.R.C. 1978, c. 663, rule 419(1) [para. 9].

Municipal Act, S.M. 1970, c. 100, sect. 444 [paras. 3, 6].

Social Allowance Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. S-160, sect. 11(5)(b) [para. 7]; sect. 20(3) [para. 5]; sect. 160 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cromwell, Thomas A., Locus Standi: A Commentary on the Law of Standing in Canada (1986) [para. 19].

Thio, S.M., Locus Standi and Judicial Review (1971) [para. 19].

Zamir, Itzhac, The Declaratory Judgment (1962) [para. 19].

Counsel:

T.B. Smith, Q.C., Harry Glinter and Susan D. Clark, for the appellants;

G. Patrick S. Riley and A.J. Roman, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 22, 1985, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 18, 1986, Le Dain, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada.