Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. Canada

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Citation: (1978), 23 N.R. 159 (SCC),88 DLR (3d) 462,23 NR 159,[1978] 6 WWR 496,[1979] 1 SCR 101,1978 CanLII 22 (SCC),[1978] SCJ No 78 (QL)
• Date: 03 October 1978

Man. Fisheries Ltd. v. Can. (1978), 23 N.R. 159 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Manitoba Fisheries Limited v. Government of Canada

Indexed As: Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

October 3, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiff's claim to compensation against the Government of Canada for the loss of its business. The plaintiff fish marketing firm was put out of business by the establishment of the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation under the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-13, which gave the Corporation exclusive control over the marketing of fresh water fish. The plaintiff was not compensated for the loss of its business and brought an action against the defendant for compensation. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiff's action in a judgment reported [1977] 2 F.C. 461. The plaintiff appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported (1977), 17 N.R. 28; [1978] 1 F.C. 485. The Federal Court of Appeal held that, since the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Act did not expropriate the plaintiff's property or deprive the plaintiff of its property, but merely took control over the market in which the plaintiff operated, the plaintiff had no right to compensation. The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff's property was expropriated and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, where the Act did not give the Crown power to expropriate property without compensation.

Civil Rights - Topic 1502

Property - Defined - Goodwill - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the goodwill of a business was part of the property of the business - See paragraphs 4 to 9.

Civil Rights - Topic 1504

Property - Deprivation of property - What constitutes - By statute a Crown corporation was granted a marketing monopoly for fresh water fish which put plaintiff and other fishing establishments out of business - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the destruction of the plaintiff's business goodwill constituted deprivation of the plaintiff's property - See paragraphs 4 to 13.

Expropriation - Topic 2

Right to compensation at common law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown at common law has no right to take property without compensation in the absence of express authority - See paragraphs 12 to 13, 28.

Expropriation - Topic 3

Right to compensation - Expropriation defined - The plaintiff fish marketing firm was put out of business by the establishment of the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation under the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-13, which gave the Corporation exclusive control over the marketing of fresh water fish - The plaintiff claimed that its goodwill had been expropriated and claimed compensation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the destruction of the plaintiff's business goodwill constituted deprivation of property, for which it was entitled to be compensated - See paragraphs 4 to 13, 27 to 28.

Words and Phrases

Goodwill - The Supreme Court of Canada defined the nature of business goodwill and held that it was property - See paragraphs 4 to 9.

Cases Noticed:

Tergo v. Hunt, [1896] A.C. 7, appld. [para. 7].

Ulster Transport Authority v. James Brown & Sons Ltd., [1953] N.I. 79, appld. [para. 8].

Attorney-General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd., [1920] A.C. 508, appld. [para. 12].

B.C. Power Corp. Ltd. v. Attorney General of British Columbia et al. (1962), 34 D.L.R.(2d) 25, appld. [para. 12].

Belfast Corporation v. O.D. Cars Ltd., [1960] A.C. 490, appld. [para. 12].

France Fenwick and Company Limited v. The King, [1927] 1 K.B. 458, dist. [para. 16].

Government of Malaysia v. Selangor Pilot Association, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 901, dist. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Fresh Water Fish Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-13, sect. 21(1), sect. 23 [para. 3]; sect. 25(2)(c) [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th Ed.), pp. 275-277 [para. 12].

Counsel:

D.C.H. McCaffrey, Q.C., K. Arenson and J. Lamont, for the appellant;

G.W. Ainslie, Q.C., and Sherwin Lyman, for the respondent.

This case was heard on June 22, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 3, 1978, RITCHIE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: