Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2005) 306 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

JudgeGauthier, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 06, 2004
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2005), 306 F.T.R. 1 (FC);2005 FC 39

Galarneau v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 306 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

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: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.031

Hélène Galarneau (demanderesse) v. Le Procureur général du Canada et Service Correctionnel du Canada (SCC) (défendeurs)

(T-2414-03; 2005 CF 39; 2005 FC 39)

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

Federal Court

Gauthier, J.

January 14, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff wanted to pursue a class action on behalf of penitentiary correctional workers at a penitentiary in Quebec who were exposed to second hand tobacco smoke. The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, applied to have the action dismissed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because a grievance and arbitration procedure existed under a collective agreement signed between the parties. An issue arose as to whether the defendant's motion respecting the court's jurisdiction was premature (i.e., should the court consider the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's proposed class action before the plaintiff's motion for authorization was heard).

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a decision reported at 266 F.T.R. 52, held that the defendant's motion was not premature. The court granted the defendant's motion and struck the plaintiff's statement of claim for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 2346

Jurisdiction - Practice - Challenging jurisdiction - Time for - [See Practice - Topic 210.1 ].

Labour Law - Topic 6906

Industrial relations - Collective agreement - Civil action - Jurisdiction - The plaintiff sought to pursue a class action on behalf of penitentiary correctional workers in Quebec who she alleged were illegally exposed to second hand tobacco smoke in the course of their employment contrary to the Non-Smokers' Health Act - The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought to dismiss the action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because a grievance and arbitration procedure existed under a collective agreement signed between the parties - A Prothonotary agreed, allowed the motion, struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action - The plaintiff appealed - The motion was considered de novo - The plaintiff disputed whether the collective agreement gave her the right to file a grievance and argued that the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code did not allow her to obtain genuine relief - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - These occupational health and safety issues between the federal Crown and the correctional officers employed by it were clearly the subject matter of a complete code - A significant panoply of administrative remedies had been provided by Parliament - The existing statutory scheme excluded the court's jurisdiction over claims by these employees and by the plaintiff in particular - See paragraphs 30 to 73.

Labour Law - Topic 9076

Public service labour relations - Remedies - Civil action - When available - [See Labour Law - Topic 6906 ].

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - General principles - The plaintiff sought to pursue a class action on behalf of penitentiary correctional workers in Quebec who she alleged were illegally exposed to second hand tobacco smoke in the course of their employment contrary to the Non-Smokers' Health Act - The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, sought to dismiss the action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because a grievance and arbitration procedure existed under a collective agreement signed between the parties - A Prothonotary allowed the motion - The plaintiff appealed - The Federal Court stated that, not only was it a subject matter expressly covered in the collective agreement, but the statutory scheme clearly barred recourse to the courts of ordinary law in such cases, where the parties could present their disagreement to an independent third party - The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the court should not apply this principle to a class action and thereby deprive the employees who were "parties" to a collective agreement of the right to launch a class action suit - While it was true that there were many advantages to a class action in practical terms, the court's rules concerning class actions did not create any substantive law - The rules could not alter the scheme provided by the legislature - See paragraphs 43 and 44.

Practice - Topic 210.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - General - Time for determining jurisdictional issues - The plaintiff wanted to pursue a class action on behalf of penitentiary correctional workers in Quebec who she alleged were illegally exposed to second hand tobacco smoke in the course of their employment contrary to the Non-Smokers' Health Act - The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, applied to have the action dismissed for want of jurisdiction - The plaintiff argued that it was premature to consider the motion because a number of the relevant factors might change depending on how the judge ruled on the certification of the action as a class action (i.e., could not know who would be a member of the group and whether they were or had been bound by the collective agreement and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, or what exactly would be the collective questions) - The Federal Court agreed with a prothonotary that the motion was not premature - See paragraphs 22 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2003), 315 N.R. 175 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Desrosiers et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 266 F.T.R. 7; 2004 FC 1601, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

MIL Davie Inc. v. Société d'exploitation et de développement d'Hibernia ltée (1998), 226 N.R. 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 6].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 6].

671905 Alberta Inc. et al. v. Q'Max Solutions Inc. (2003), 305 N.R. 137 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards Inc. et al. (1997), 126 F.T.R. 1; 72 C.P.R.(3d) 157 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 21].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hodgson et al. v. Ermineskin Indian Band et al. (2000), 267 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2001), 276 N.R. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Société Asbestos Ltée v. Lacroix, [2004] J.Q. No. 9410 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Alb and Deminchuk v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] P.S.S.R.B. No. 343, refd to. [para. 32].

Labelle v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1990] P.S.S.R.B. No. 54, refd to. [para. 32].

Gaignard et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 178 O.A.C. 77 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 44].

Carrier v. Québec, [2000] J.Q. No. 3048 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Johnson-Paquette v. Canada (2000), 253 N.R. 305 (F.C.A.), affing. (1998), 159 F.T.R. 42 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2003] 3 F.C. 645; 306 N.R. 366 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Guenette et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 371; 60 O.R.(3d) 601 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Vaughan v. Canada (2001), 213 F.T.R. 144 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Vaughan v. Canada (2000), 182 F.T.R. 199 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 52].

McKenzie-Crowe et al. v. Canada (2003), 233 F.T.R. 139 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 55].

Bédirian v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 257 F.T.R. 311; 2004 FC 566, refd to. [para. 57].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301, refd to. [para. 58].

Counsel:

Pierre Sylvestre and Iris Montini, for the plaintiff;

André Lespérance and Marie Marmet, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Sylvestre, Fafard, Painchaud, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

This appeal was heard on October 6, 2004, at Montreal, Quebec, before Gauthier, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on January 14, 2005.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Canada v. Greenwood,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • 21 Septiembre 2021
    ...v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 1601, 266 F.T.R. 7, 2004 CarswellNat 4124 [Desrosiers] and Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 39, 306 F.T.R. 1 [Galarneau]. [79] The Federal Court dismissed these arguments. It was not convinced that the circumstances were comparable to tho......
  • Gagné v. Canada, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 150
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 3 Abril 2013
    ...on CanLII); Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd , 2003 FC 1229, at para 10, 241 FTR 174; Galarneau v Canada (Attorney General) , 2005 FC 39 at para 18, 306 FTR 1] [26] Although in this case the applicant does not seek to introduce new evidence but rather proposes to amend his original stat......
  • Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al., 2010 FC 498
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 16 Abril 2010
    ...Wireless Inc., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 921; 365 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 8]. Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 306 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 39, refd to. [para. Merchant Law Group et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency et al. (2008), 338 F.T.R. 181; 2008 FC 1371, refd to. [para. ......
  • Bernath v. Canada, (2005) 275 F.T.R. 232 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 2 Marzo 2005
    ...(2004), 266 F.T.R. 7; 2004 FC 1601, refd to. [para. 37]. Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.031; 2005 FC 39, refd to. [para. Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 42]. Dumont v. Canada (2003), 323 N.R. 316 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Canada v. Greenwood,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • 21 Septiembre 2021
    ...v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 1601, 266 F.T.R. 7, 2004 CarswellNat 4124 [Desrosiers] and Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 39, 306 F.T.R. 1 [Galarneau]. [79] The Federal Court dismissed these arguments. It was not convinced that the circumstances were comparable to tho......
  • Gagné v. Canada, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 150
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 3 Abril 2013
    ...on CanLII); Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd , 2003 FC 1229, at para 10, 241 FTR 174; Galarneau v Canada (Attorney General) , 2005 FC 39 at para 18, 306 FTR 1] [26] Although in this case the applicant does not seek to introduce new evidence but rather proposes to amend his original stat......
  • Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al., 2010 FC 498
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 16 Abril 2010
    ...Wireless Inc., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 921; 365 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 8]. Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 306 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 39, refd to. [para. Merchant Law Group et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency et al. (2008), 338 F.T.R. 181; 2008 FC 1371, refd to. [para. ......
  • Bernath v. Canada, (2005) 275 F.T.R. 232 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 2 Marzo 2005
    ...(2004), 266 F.T.R. 7; 2004 FC 1601, refd to. [para. 37]. Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.031; 2005 FC 39, refd to. [para. Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 42]. Dumont v. Canada (2003), 323 N.R. 316 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT