Mainville et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2009) 398 N.R. 249 (FCA)

• Judge: Nadon, Blais and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 08, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 398 N.R. 249 (FCA);2009 FCA 196

Mainville v. Can. (A.G.) (2009), 398 N.R. 249 (FCA)

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: [2009] N.R. TBEd. JL.056

Aurélien Mainville et Claude Paulin (appelants) v. Le Procureur général du Canada (intimé)

(A-190-07; 2009 FCA 196; 2009 CAF 196)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Blais and Pelletier, JJ.A.

June 8, 2009.

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, in a judgment reported (2007), 310 F.T.R. 100, 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. The fishermen appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

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 trial judge 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 - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

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 trial judge dismissed the application - The judge 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 judge held that no fiduciary duty existed - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

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:

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Jean-Marc Gauvin, for the appellants;

Paul Marquis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Godin Lizotte, Shippigan, N.B., for the appellants;

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

This appeal was heard on June 8, 2009, at Fredericton, N.B., before Nadon, Blais and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On June 8, 2009, Nadon, J.A., delivered the following judgment orally for the Court of Appeal.