Kibale v. Canada, (1994) 169 N.R. 217 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 08, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 169 N.R. 217 (FCA)

Kibale v. Can. (1994), 169 N.R. 217 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Guillaume Kibale (appelant) v. Sa Majesté La Reine (intimée)

(A-1486-92)

Indexed As: Kibale v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A.

February 8, 1994.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the Crown for damages because he was not awarded an economist's position with a federal government depart­ment.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 58 F.T.R. 199, dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed. The Crown cross-appealed with respect to costs.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Crown - Topic 1534

Torts by and against Crown - Liability of Crown for acts of servants - Hiring prac­tices - In 1981 the plaintiff entered a federal government competition for an economist's job - He was the best quali­fied, but was not hired - In 1985, the plaintiff learned that the same pool of candidates was considered for two other positions (i.e., "piggy-backing") - He was not hired for these positions - The plaintiff sued the Crown for damages, alleging that Crown employees were at fault - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the plaintiff was not able to show the com­mission of a wrongful act at common law which was the first condition for an action in tort under the Crown Liability Act - See paragraph 11.

Crown - Topic 1534

Torts by and against Crown - Liability of Crown for acts of servants - Hiring prac­tices - The plaintiff was not hired for an economist's job with the federal govern­ment although he was the best qualified - He was also not hired for two other posi­tions for which he and the other candidates were considered - The plaintiff sued the Crown for damages, alleging that Crown employees were at fault - The Federal Court of Appeal expressed doubt that irregularities in the way the competition was held or proof that an appointment was made without observing requirements of the Crown Liability Act could be sufficient grounds for an action in damages as the common law did not recognize the concept of a special civil wrong for breach of a legal obligation - See paragraph 10.

Labour Law - Topic 9203

Public service labour relations - Job com­petitions - Merit principle - [See both Crown - Topic 1534 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3010

Actions in tort - General principles - When time begins to run - In 1981 the plaintiff entered a fed­eral government job competition for an economist's job - He was the best quali­fied, but was not hired - In 1985, the plaintiff learned that the same pool of candidates was considered for two other positions, neither of which were offered to him - The plaintiff sued the Crown for damages in 1988 - The Crown argued that the actions were barred by the six year limitation period in the Ontario Limitations Act, s. 45(1)(g) - The Federal Court of Appeal held that all three actions were statute barred - The court stated that ig­norance of non-critical facts would not delay the prescription period - See para­graph 9.

Cases Noticed:

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 42 R.P.R. 161; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 34 B.L.R. 187, refd to. [para. 9].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 10].

Beaton v. Public Service Commission (Can.) (1984), 6 Admin. L.R. 119 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Liability Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-38, generally [para. 1].

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, sect. 45(1)(g) [para. 9].

Counsel:

Guillaume Kibale, on his own behalf;

Alain Préfontaine, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on January 26, 1994, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Marceau, Décary and Létourneau, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On February 8, 1994, the following deci­sion was delivered by the court.