Finlay v. Canada, (1993) 150 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 150 N.R. 81 (SCC);63 FTR 99;[1993] 1 SCR 1080;101 DLR (4th) 567;150 NR 81;1993 CanLII 129 (SCC)

Finlay v. Can. (1993), 150 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

The Minister of Finance of Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (appellants) v. Robert James Finlay (respondent) and the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General for Alberta and the National Anti-Poverty Organization (intervenors)

(22162)

Indexed As: Finlay v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci,

and Major, JJ.

March 25, 1993.

Summary:

Finlay was unable to work and received benefits under the Manitoba Social Allow­ances Act. On three occasions he received overpayments of benefits. The province subsequently made deductions in his month­ly allowance under the Act to recover the overpayments. Finlay sued for declaratory relief. Finlay argued that it was illegal for the federal government to continue transfer payments to the Province of Manitoba under the Canada Assistance Plan Act and the relevant cost-sharing agreement while Man­itoba continued the practice of deductions of overpayments from benefits and while Man­itoba permitted municipalities to establish their own rates of assistance independently of the provincial authority.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 25 F.T.R. 45; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 211, allowed the action. The court declared that Manitoba's scheme for overpayments violated the Canada Assistance Plan, but that the Plan did not prohibit mu­nicipal rate setting. The Crown appealed and Finlay cross-appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1990] 2 F.C. 790; 115 N.R. 321; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 422, held that Manitoba was breaching the Canada Assistance Plan on both grounds. The federal Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, L'Heureux-Dubé, Cory and La Forest, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments below and dismissed Finlay's action. The court held that the deductions from an individual's social assistance for recovery of overpayments did not violate the Canada Assistance Plan or the agreement between Manitoba and the federal govern­ment. Further, there was nothing in the Canada Assistance Plan or the agreement which required that social assistance rates be set by the provincial authority or which prohibited the scheme adopted by Manitoba.

Social Assistance - Topic 3

General - Interpretation of legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "takes into account" as it appeared in s. 6(2) of the Canada Assistance Plan Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-1 - See paragraphs 7 and 8.

Social Assistance - Topic 21

Funding of assistance programs - General - The Manitoba Social Assistance Act permitted the province to make deductions from social assistance payments for recov­ery of overpayments - A social assistance recipient, who had overpayment deductions taken from his assistance payments, argued that it was illegal for the federal govern­ment to continue transfer payments to the Province of Manitoba under the Canada Assistance Plan Act and the relevant cost-sharing agreement while Manitoba con­tinued the practice of deductions of over­payments from benefits and while Mani­toba permitted municipalities to establish their own rates of assistance independently of the provincial authority - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Manitoba's scheme did not violate the Canada Assis­tance Plan or the cost-sharing agreement.

Social Assistance - Topic 23

Funding of assistance programs - Transfer payments - [See Social Assistance - Topic 21 ].

Statutes - Topic 1800

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - General - The Supreme Court of Canada looked to the French version of s. 6(2) of the Canada Assistance Plan Act in interpreting the English version of s. 6(2) - See paragraphs 7, 8.

Words and Phrases

Takes into account - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it appeared in s. 6(2) of the Canada Assistance Plan Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-1 - See paragraphs 7 and 8.

Cases Noticed:

Finlay and Director of Welfare (Winnipeg South/West), Re (1976), 71 D.L.R.(3d) 597 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 10].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 3].

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158; 123 D.L.R.(3d) 554, refd to. [para. 58].

Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario - see Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re.

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re, Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. Ltd. et al. v. Newfoundland (At­torney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 58].

Reference Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act - see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re.

R. v. Sullivan and Lemay, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 489; 122 N.R. 166; 3 C.R.(4th) 277; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 55 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Mailloux, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1029; 89 N.R. 222; 30 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Vasil, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 469; 35 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 58].

Abrahams v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2; 46 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 63].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 63].

Kerr v. Metropolitan Toronto (Department of Social Services, General Manager) (1991), 49 O.A.C. 362; 4 O.R.(3d) 430 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].

Damon v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1977), 557 F.2d 31, refd to. [para. 65].

Brown v. Bates (1973), 363 F.Supp. 897, refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Assistance Plan Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-1, preamble [para. 27]; sect. 1 [para. 27]; sect. 2 [paras. 13, 14, 27, 47]; sect. 3 [para. 27]; sect. 4 [paras. 6, 14, 26, 27]; sect. 5 [paras. 6, 10]; sect. 6(2) [para. 27]; sect. 6(2)(a), sect. 6(2)(b) [para. 6 et seq.]; sect. 7 [paras. 6, 27].

Canada Assistance Plan Act Regulations (Can.), Canada Assistance Plan Regula­tions, C.R.C. 1978, c. 382, sect. 2(2) [paras. 13, 29]; sect. 3(b) [paras. 10, 29].

Municipal Act, R.S.M. 1988, c. M-225; C.C.S.M., M-225, sect. 449 [para. 34]; sect. 450(1), sect. 451(1) [paras. 15, 34]; sect. 451(4) [paras. 16, 34]; sect. 452 [para. 34].

Social Allowances Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. S-160; C.C.S.M., S-160, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 7(1), sect. 7(2) [para. 32]; sect. 9 [para. 16]; sect. 9(1) [paras. 31, 32]; sect. 9(3) [paras. 10, 32]; sect. 20(1) [para. 32]; sect. 20(3) [para. 2 et seq.].

Social Allowances Act Regulations (Man.), S160-404/88R, sect. 5, Schedule A [para. 32].

Social Services Administration Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. S-165; C.C.S.M., S-165, gen­erally [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 27th Parl., pp. 6408 [para. 61]; 6921 [para. 58]; 7199-7200, 7229 [para. 59]; 7411 [para. 60].

Counsel:

Eric A. Bowie, Q.C., Faye E. Campbell, Q.C., and Harry Glinter, for the appel­lants;

G. Patrick S. Riley and John A. Myers, for the respondent;

Louis Rochette and Dominique Rousseau, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

W. Glenn McFetridge, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Beverley Bauer, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Arne Peltz, for the intervener, the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Taylor, McCaffrey, Chapman, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;

Dominique Rousseau, André Gaudreau and Louis Rochette, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Deputy Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Beverley Bauer, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Arne Peltz, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

This appeal was originally heard on March 23, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal was reheard on January 28, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on March 25, 1993, in­cluding the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 17;

Lamer, C.J.C., concurring reasons - see paragraph 18;

McLachlin, J., dissenting (L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 19 to 87;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 88 and 89.