Mourant v. Sackville (Town), (2013) 412 N.B.R.(2d) 29 (TD)

• Judge: Rideout, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: September 23, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2013), 412 N.B.R.(2d) 29 (TD);2013 NBQB 325

Mourant v. Sackville (2013), 412 N.B.R.(2d) 29 (TD);

    412 R.N.-B.(2e) 29; 1070 A.P.R. 29

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

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

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.022

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.022

Eric Joseph Mourant (plaintiff) v. The Town of Sackville, a municipal body incorporate (defendant)

(MC/319/13; 2013 NBQB 325; 2013 NBBR 325)

Indexed As: Mourant v. Sackville (Town)

Répertorié: Mourant v. Sackville (Town)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

October 4, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

Mourant was terminated from his position as Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Sackville. He brought an action against the Town, seeking a declaration that there was no cause at law for his termination and reinstatement with full salary and benefits. The Town moved to have the action dismissed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 3804

Judicial review - Mandamus - Practice - Form of commencement of action - [See Practice - Topic 73 ].

Practice - Topic 73

Actions - Commencement of - Choice of method of commencement of proceedings - Action v. application - In August 2011, Mourant was terminated from his position as Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Sackville - In May 2013, he brought an action against the Town, seeking a declaration that there was no cause at law for his termination and reinstatement with full salary and benefits retroactive to August 2011 - The Town moved to have the action dismissed pursuant to rule 23 of the Rules of Court - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion - A rule 23 motion could proceed in this case because it might dispose of the action and result in a substantial saving of costs - Mourant was essentially seeking a writ of mandamus to force the Town to rehire him - Given this, he should have applied for judicial review pursuant to rule 69 - Mourant's action was filed well outside the three month limitation period provided for in rule 69.03 - Nothing precluded an action for damages for wrongful dismissal, but that was not what Mourant had asked for.

Practice - Topic 5384

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Circumstances when granted - [See Practice - Topic 73 ].

Droit administratif - Cote 3804

Révision judiciaire - Mandamus - Procédure - Mode d'institution de l'action - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 3804 ].

Procédure - Cote 73

Introduction de l'action - Choix de la méthode d'instruction de l'action - Action ou requête? - [Voir Practice - Topic 73 ].

Procédure - Cote 5384

Rejet de l'action - Requête ou motion en rejet - Circonstances justifiant l'octroi - [Voir Practice - Topic 5384 ].

Cases Noticed:

Clark v. Naqvi (1989), 99 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 250 A.P.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Agnew et al. v. Dow Chemical Co. et al. (1991), 116 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 293 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) (2013), 402 N.B.R.(2d) 228; 1044 A.P.R. 228; 2013 NBCA 21, refd to. [para. 16].

Cronkhite v. Nackawic (Town) (2009), 344 N.B.R.(2d) 317; 884 A.P.R. 317; 2009 NBQB 110 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général) (2004), 327 N.R. 160; 2004 FCA 172, refd to. [para. 20].

Paszkowski v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2006), 287 F.T.R. 116; 2006 CarswellNat 359; 2006 FC 198, refd to. [para. 20].

New Brunswick et al. v. LeBlanc et al. (2012), 398 N.B.R.(2d) 83; 1032 A.P.R. 83; 2013 NBCA 9, refd to. [para. 21].

Smith v. Human Rights Commission (N.B.) et al. (1999), 217 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 555 A.P.R. 336; 1999 CanLII 1629 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Avocats:

George E. Kalinowski, for the plaintiff;

James F. LeMesurier, Q.C., for the defendant.

This motion was heard at Moncton, N.B., on September 23, 2013, before Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on October 4, 2013.