Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) et al., (2011) 424 N.R. 198 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 15, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 424 N.R. 198 (SCC);2011 SCC 60

Que. (A.G.) v. Can. (2011), 424 N.R. 198 (SCC)

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: [2011] N.R. TBEd. DE.009

Attorney General of Quebec (appellant) v. Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada and Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (respondents) and Rock Bruyère and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)

(33511; 2011 SCC 60; 2011 CSC 60)

Indexed As: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

December 8, 2011.

Summary:

Following an industrial accident, Bruyère received income replacement benefits from the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST). From November 1, 2006 to August 24, 2007, the CSST complied with a requirement to pay that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission had issued under s. 126(4) of the Employment Insurance Act (EIA), in order to recover employment insurance benefits Bruyère had received from the Commission but to which he was not entitled. Bruyère challenged the lawfulness of the remittance of the income replacement benefits on the ground that they were unseizable by virtue of s. 144 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported at 2008 QCCS 1465, ruled in Bruyère's favour, finding that the CSST had acted improperly.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 2009 QCCA 2246, allowed an appeal and set aside the Superior Court's judgment. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3611

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - General - This appeal raised the issue of the interplay between a provincial statutory provision according to which provincial income replacement benefits received by an injured worker were exempt from seizure and a federal statutory provision that authorized the issuance by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission of a requirement to pay - One of the issues was whether the issue of the common law immunity should be considered before that of paramountcy - The Supreme Court of Canada held that several reasons supported considering the paramountcy doctrine before determining whether Crown immunity applied - First, the privilege of Crown immunity had been eroded somewhat - A more modern approach to the role of governments was reflected in numerous legislative amendments - Second, the exceptions to the Crown immunity rule were now so numerous that the current law in this field was considered to be exceedingly complex - It was said that most of the techniques used to ensure that statutes applied to the Crown were uncertain in scope and unpredictable in their application - The immunity was considered to be broader than was necessary for governments to function properly - Finally, as was true of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, the immunity rule had tended to benefit the federal Crown asymmetrically - Although the courts could not change the Crown immunity rule given that it is set out in s. 17 of the Interpretation Act, this did not mean that they were required to apply it systematically - Where a case could be decided without recourse to Crown immunity, the court should generally give preference to the other grounds raised by the parties - See paragraphs 10 to 16.

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - Following an industrial accident, Bruyère received income replacement benefits from the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST) - From November 1, 2006 to August 24, 2007, the CSST complied with a requirement to pay the Canada Employment Insurance Commission had issued under s. 126(4) of the Employment Insurance Act (EIA), in order to recover employment insurance benefits Bruyère had received from the Commission but to which he was not entitled - Bruyère challenged the lawfulness of the remittance of the income replacement benefits on the ground that they were unseizable by virtue of s. 144 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the two provisions were in conflict and that the doctrine of paramountcy applied - Parliament had, in enacting s. 126(4) of the EIA, chosen to give the Commission a freestanding positive right to require a third party to pay to the Receiver General any amount the third party owed a person who was liable to make a payment under the EIA, on account of that person's liability - The purpose of this measure was to ensure the integrity of the employment insurance system by making it possible to recover amounts owed under the EIA, including benefit overpayments, in a simple and summary fashion, without regard for the provincial rules respecting exemption from seizure - This purpose would be frustrated if the Commission were to comply with the provincial provision creating an exemption from seizure.

Cases Noticed:

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Philips et al. v. Richard J.

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 11].

Leroy (Ted) Trucking Ltd. et al., Re, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 379; 409 N.R. 201; 296 B.C.A.C. 1; 503 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 12].

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Leroy (Ted) Trucking Ltd. et al., Re.

CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120; 1 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 15].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536; 407 N.R. 101; 2010 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 17].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 20].

Clarke v. Clarke, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 795; 113 N.R. 321; 101 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 275 A.P.R. 1, consd. [para. 21].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 188; 331 N.R. 116; 257 Sask.R. 171; 342 W.A.C. 171; 2005 SCC 13, consd. [para. 21].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, consd. [para. 21].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, consd. [para. 21].

Bourassa (Bankrupt), Re (2002), 312 A.R. 19; 281 W.A.C. 19; 6 Alta. L.R. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases, R.S.Q. c. A-3.001, sect. 144 [para. 19].

Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, sect. 126(4) [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, Beaulac, Stéphane, and Devinat, Mathieu, Interprétation des lois (4th Ed. 2009), para. 1289 [para. 27].

Hogg, Peter W., and Monahan, Patrick J., Liability of the Crown (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 327 and 329 [para. 13]; 326 to 330 [para. 15].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada, (5th Ed.) (Supp.), Vol. 1, pp. 10-14 to 10-23 [para. 15].

Issalys, Pierre, and Lemieux, Denis, L'action gouvernementale: Précis de droit des institutions administratives (3rd Ed. 2009), pp. 1396 to 1397 [para. 15].

McNairn, Colin H.H., Governmental and Intergovernmental Immunity in Australia and Canada (1977), p. 42 [para. 14].

Saunders, Brian J., Rennie, Donald J., and Garton, Graham, Federal Courts Practice 2011 (2010), p. 345 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Alain Gingras and Benoît Boucher, for the appellant;

Bernard Letarte and Pierre Salois, for the respondent, the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada;

No one appeared for the respondent, Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail;

No one appeared for the intervenor, Rock Bruyère;

Tyna Mason, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Justice, Quebec, Quebec, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada;

Department of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard on February 15, 2011, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages, by Deschamps, J., on December 8, 2011.