Haswell v. Canada (Attorney General), (1998) 56 O.T.C. 143 (GD)

• Judge: Chadwick, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 11, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 56 O.T.C. 143 (GD)

Haswell v. Can. (A.G.) (1998), 56 O.T.C. 143 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.122

Geoffrey Haswell (plaintiff) v. The Attorney General of Canada (defendant)

(Court File No. 97-CV-3263)

Indexed As: Haswell v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Chadwick, J.

February 11, 1998.

Summary:

Haswell, a commissioned officer in the Canadian Forces, was advised that he would be compulsorily retired pursuant to the provisions of the National Defence Act and the Queen's Regulations and Orders. He did not pursue a grievance pursuant to the Act but commenced a tort action against the Attorney General. He argued that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act gave the Ontario Court (General Division) concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court. The Attorney General moved for an order striking out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the motion. Haswell's compulsory retirement was covered by the National Defence Act and Regulations and the remedies provided therein. As such, his remedies were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court (Federal Court Act, s. 18).

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Courts - Topic 4032

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Military matters - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Courts - Topic 7402

Provincial Courts - Ontario - General Division - Jurisdiction - General - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Practice - Topic 5384

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Circumstances when granted - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

Prete v. Ontario et al. (1993), 68 O.A.C. 1; 16 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Jones v. Canada et al. (1994), 87 F.T.R. 190 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Gallant v. Canada (1978), 91 D.L.R.(3d) 695 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canada Labour Relations Board and Canada (Attorney General) v. L'Anglais (Paul) Inc., J.P.L. Productions Inc., Canada Union of Public Employees et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147; 47 N.R. 351; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 202, refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18(1)(a), sect. 18.1 [para. 4].

National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, sect. 29 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Cecil J. Lyon, for the plaintiff/responding party;

Anne M. Turley and M. Kathleen McManus, for the defendant.

This motion was heard before Chadwick, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following reasons for decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 11, 1998.