Mainville et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FC 251

• Judge: Blanchard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2007 FC 251;(2007), 310 F.T.R. 100 (FC)

Mainville v. Can. (A.G.) (2007), 310 F.T.R. 100 (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: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.038

Aurélien Mainville and Claude Paulin (applicants) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-742-06; 2007 CF 251; 2007 FC 251)

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

Federal Court

Blanchard, J.

March 6, 2007.

Summary:

Two fishermen, excluded from the distribution of the total allowable catch of snow crab in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision. The fishermen alleged breach of the principles of natural justice and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Minister's decision, based on relevant considerations, made in good faith and not arbitrarily, was not contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Minister had no fiduciary duty to the fishermen.

Crown - Topic 676

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Discretionary power - Limitations - The Minister's snow crab fishing plan allocated the allowable catch 10% to the Acadian Groundfish Fishermen's Association and 90% to the Maritime Fishermen's Union - Two groundfish dependent fishermen, who were not members of either organization, were accordingly excluded from the snow crab allocation - The fishermen sought judicial review, alleging breach of the principles of natural justice - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Minister's discretion respecting licences under s. 7(1) of the Fisheries Act was restricted only by the principles of natural justice, which meant that the Minister "must base his decision on relevant considerations, avoid arbitrariness and act in good faith" - The principles of natural justice did not require the Minister to treat all fishermen in the same way - The fact that the fishermen received a different allocation (cod allocation instead of snow crab) was acceptable, where it was based on relevant considerations, not arbitrary and was made in good faith - The fishermen's exclusion from the snow crab quota arose because they decided to remain in the "competitive fisher group" - They were necessarily treated differently from other groundfish fishermen - See paragraphs 24 to 36.

Equity - Topic 3611

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Crown - The Minister's snow crab fishing plan allocated the allowable catch 10% to the Acadian Groundfish Fishermen's Association and 90% to the Maritime Fishermen's Union - Two groundfish dependent fishermen, who were not members of either organization, were accordingly excluded from the snow crab allocation - The fishermen sought judicial review of the Minister's discretionary decision, alleging breach of fiduciary duty - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court, in finding no fiduciary duty, noted that the Supreme Court of Canada had held that "public law duties, the performance of which requires the exercise of discretion, do not typically give rise to a fiduciary relationship" - Given the Minister's duty to manage, conserve and develop the fishery on behalf of all Canadians, "it is extremely unlikely that a fiduciary relationship exists between the Minister and the [fishermen]" - The court held that no fiduciary duty existed - See paragraphs 37 to 44.

Fish and Game - Topic 164

Fisheries - Regulation - Quotas - [See Crown - Topic 676 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 221

Right to fish - Licensing - General - [See Crown - Topic 676 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tucker v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (2001), 288 N.R. 10; 2001 FCA 384, refd to. [para. 8].

Marine Research Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 365 N.R. 217; 2006 FCA 425, refd to. [para. 8].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12; 206 N.R. 363, refd to. [para. 25].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, dist. [para. 27].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 28].

Carpenter Fishing Corp. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1998] 2 F.C. 548; 221 N.R. 372 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57, refd to. [para. 37].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

Harris v. Minister of National Revenue, [2002] 2 F.C. 484; 214 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 7(1) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Jean-Marc Gauvin, for the applicants;

Guy Lambe, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Godin, Lizotte, Robichaud, Guignard, Shippagan, N.B., for the applicants;

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

This application was heard on January 8, 2007, at Fredericton, N.B., before Blanchard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 6, 2007.