Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, (1999) 235 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA)

• Judge: Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ryan and Drapeau, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: Friday November 26, 1999
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1999), 235 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA);1999 CanLII 4752 (NB CA);235 NBR (2d) 1;181 DLR (4th) 643;[1999] NBJ No 543 (QL);39 CPC (4th) 195;607 APR 1

Rice, P.C.J. v. N.B. (1999), 235 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA);

    235 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 607 A.P.R. 1

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: [1999] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.020

Douglas E. Rice (plaintiff/appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Finance (defendant/respondent)

(149/98/CA)

Indexed As: Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ryan and Drapeau, JJ.A.

November 26, 1999.

Summary:

Rice, P.C.J., sued the provincial Minister of Finance seeking damages and declaratory relief. He asserted that the pen­sion scheme for Provincial Court judges and the removal of the supernumerary desig­nation for Pro­vincial Court judges were unconstitutional. He sought solicitor and client costs.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at [1998] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 69, declared that the repeal of the right of Provincial Court judges to elect supernumerary status was unconstitutional, but suspended the declara­tion pending recourse to an independent commission process (the Judicial Remuner­ation Commission was subsequently ap­pointed). The court dismissed the claim for other declaratory relief and damages. The court refused to award solicitor and client costs, but granted fixed party and party costs. Rice, P.C.J., appealed, asking that the judgment be varied to declare the pension plan unconstitutional and to remove the temporary suspension of the declaration of invalidity. He also appealed the cost award and denial of damages. The Province cross-appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Daigle, C.J.N.B., dissenting, allowed the appeal and referred the pension issue to the Commission. The court further held that Rice, P.C.J., was entitled to damages and remitted the matter to the trial judge. The court also awarded solicitor and client costs. The court dismissed the Crown's cross-appeal.

Editor's note: for decisions issued in the companion case, Mackin, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, please see 176 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 447 A.P.R. 321; 183 N.B.R.(2d) 223; 465 A.P.R. 223; 187 N.B.R.(2d) 224; 478 A.P.R. 224; 193 N.B.R.(2d) 52; 493 A.P.R. 52, and [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 108 (Q.B.).

Civil Rights - Topic 3135

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to indepen­dent and impartial tribunal - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8304

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application of - General (incl. retrospectivity) - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8375

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Damages - A Provincial Court judge was granted a declaration that the abolishment of the office of the supernumerary judge violated judicial independence and was therefore unconstitutional - The judge sought dam­ages - The New Brunswick Court of Ap­peal, Daigle, C.J.N.B., dissenting, held that the judge was entitled to damages - Ryan, J.A., held that issues were unique - The legislative and executive branches disre­garded the limits of their discretionary power by attacking the judiciary's inde­pendence - Alternatively, damages were available under s. 24 of the Charter where there was bad faith - This was a rare case where general rules of damages did not apply - Drapeau, J.A., commented that bad faith was not a condition precedent to damages - The court remitted the issue of quantum to the trial judge - The court awarded solicitor and client costs in light of the flagrant circumstances - See para­graphs 54 to 65.

Constitutional Law - Topic 541

Powers of parliament and the legislatures - Limitation on powers of legislatures - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8375 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507.2

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Declaration of inva­lidity - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2624

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Considerations - Motivation of legis­lature - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8375 ].

Courts - Topic 308

Judges - Independence of judiciary - What constitutes interference with - The Provin­cial Court Act provided for the office of the supernumerary judge - Amending legis­lation abolished the office - A super­numer­ary judge sought a declar­ation that the elimination of the office was unconsti­tu­tional - The trial judge granted the dec­laration of unconstitutionality based on the Province's failure to provide an indepen­dent commission to review judicial remun­eration and benefits - On appeal, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Daigle, C.J.N.B., dissenting, upheld the declaration of invalidity, but held that it was unnec­essary to refer the issue to the Commission - It was unconstitutional for other reasons: there was interference with judicial inde­pendence in both its individual and institu­tional dimensions; it was an arbitrary interference with financial security; and it showed a lack of respect by the legisla­tive and executive branches - Finally, s. 1 of the Charter did not apply where the inde­pendence of judiciary predated the Consti­tution and Charter - Alternatively, the elimin­ation of the office was arbitrary and failed to impact on judges' rights as little as poss­ible - See paragraphs 21 to 51.

Courts - Topic 311

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Fi­nancial security - An issue arose as to whether the abolishment of the office of the supernumerary designation was uncon­stitutional - A supernumerary judge as­serted that the removal of the office vio­lated judicial independence - In reply, the government asserted that the supernu­mer­ary scheme had no remunerative qual­ity - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected the assertion - See para­graph 29.

Courts - Topic 311

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Fi­nancial security - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Courts - Topic 312

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Se­curity of tenure - The Provincial Court Act referred to the "office" of the super­numer­ary judge - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the term "office" had a settled meaning that connoted tenure - See paragraphs 30 to 35.

Courts - Topic 314

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Insti­tutional independence - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Courts - Topic 314.1

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Indi­vidual independence - [See Courts - Topic 308 ].

Damages - Topic 200

Entitlement - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8375 ].

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - En­title­ment to - Improper, irresponsible or uncon­scionable conduct - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8375 ].

Words and Phrases

Office - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "office" as found in the Provincial Court Act - See paragraphs 4, 5 and 29 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Craig v. British Columbia (1997), 40 B.C.L.R. 289 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 19].

Sirois v. Centennial Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. and General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1988), 89 N.B.R.(2d) 244; 226 A.P.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 20, 203].

R. v. Campbell (S.C.) et al. (1994), 160 A.R. 81; 25 Alta. L.R.(3d) 158 (Q.B.), affd. (1995), 169 A.R. 178; 97 W.A.C. 178; 31 Alta. L.R.(3d) 190 (C.A.), revd. in part [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 11 C.P.C.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 21].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.) - see R. v. Campbell (S.C.) et al.

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 28].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Burnet v. McDonough, C.C.A., 46 F.2d 944, refd to. [para. 30].

State ex rel. Mosconi v. Mahoney, 90 S.W. 11, refd to. [para. 30].

Haight v. C.I.R., C.C.A., 52 F.2d 779, refd to. [para. 30].

Glendinning v. Curry, 14 So.2d 794; 153 Fla. 308, refd to. [para. 30].

Hawthorne v. Fisher, D.C. Tex. 33; F. Supp. 891, refd to. [para. 30].

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schnackenberg, C.C.A., 90 F.2d 175, refd to. [para. 30].

Kendall v. Raybould, 44 P. 1034; 13 Utah 226, refd to. [para. 30].

Bucker v. C.I.R., C.C.A., 77 F.2d 297, refd to. [para. 30].

Mallory v. White, D.C. Mass., S. F. Supp. 989, refd to. [para. 30].

U.S. v. Fisher, C.C. Ohio, 8 F 414, refd to. [para. 30].

Olmstead v. New York (City), 42 N.Y.Super.Ct.; 10 Jones & S. 481, refd to. [para. 30].

People v. Nichols, 52 N.Y. 478; 11 Am. Rep. 734, refd to. [para. 30].

Childers v. C.I.R. 80, F.2d 27, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 43].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

Factortame Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Transport, [1998] E.W.J. No. 596 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Bishop v. Carleton Co-operative Ltd. (1996), 176 N.B.R.(2d) 206; 447 A.P.R. 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gé­néral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Qué­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 123].

Qualcast Ltd. v. Haynes (1959), 2 All E.R. 38, refd to. [para. 158].

Parlee v. McFarlane (1999), 210 N.B.R.(2d) 284; 536 A.P.R. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Couture v. Caisse populaire de Bathurst ltée (1997), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 386; 472 A.P.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Hickey and Hickey v. Hickey and Hickey (1988), 86 N.B.R.(2d) 421; 219 A.P.R. 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Clowater v. Banque Nationale du Canada (1988), 88 N.B.R.(2d) 279; 224 A.P.R. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Bank of Montreal v. Boudreau (1974), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 487 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Kalkinis et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (1998), 117 O.A.C. 193; 41 O.R.(3d) 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Vogler v. Matzick (1988), 33 B.C.L.R.(2d) 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Win­nipeg (Municipality), [1971] S.C.R. 957; [1972] 3 W.W.R. 433, dist. [para. 176].

Central Canada Potash Co. and Canada (Attorney General) v. Saskatchewan, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 42; 23 N.R. 481; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 176].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 762; 144 N.R. 1; 59 O.A.C. 81; 12 M.P.L.R.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 176].

Crown Trust Co. and Greymac Trust Co. v. Ontario, Taylor, Touche, Ross Ltd., Shuve, Woods, Gordon and Central Trust Co. et al. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 137; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 179].

Pawar et al. v. Canada (1997), 132 F.T.R. 44 (T.D. Protho.), affd. (1997), 137 F.T.R. 231 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 180].

Shewfelt v. Canada (1997), 28 B.C.L.R.(3d) 340 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 180].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attor­ney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 193].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 196].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 201].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124, refd to. [para. 201].

Algonquin Wildlands League v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) (1998), 110 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 201].

Corbière v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1994] 1 F.C. 394; 87 F.T.R. 183 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 201].

Batchewana Indian Band (Non-Resident Members) v. Batchewana Indian Band - see Corbière v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs).

Pacific Press Ltd. et al. v. Minister of Employ­ment and Immigration et al. (No. 3) (1991), 127 N.R. 325; 10 Imm. L.R.(2d) 42 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 201].

Bishop v. Carleton Co-operative Ltd. (1996), 176 N.B.R.(2d) 206; 447 A.P.R. 206; 21 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 203].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gellhorn, Walter, Individual Freedom and Governmental Restraints (1956), pp. 39, 40 [para. 26].

Mason, Anthony, Judicial Independence and the Separation of Powers - Some Problems Old and New, U.B.C.L. Rev., vol. 24:2, pp. 345, 349 [para. 48].

McEachern, Allan, Commonwealth Law Conference Paper, vol. 4B, p. 4 [para. 34].

Montesquieu, Charles Louis, De l'esprit des lois, Book XI, c. 6 [para. 27].

Orkin, M.M., The Law of Costs (2nd Ed. 1997), generally [para. 203].

Rehnquist, William H., The Supreme Court: How It Was How It Is, generally [para. 51].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1987), pp. 14-76 to 14-102 [para. 201].

Schmeiser, Douglas, A., Judicial Indepen­dence at the Provincial Court Level, 11th Common Wealth Law Conference Paper, pp. 3, 4 [para. 49].

Williston, W.B., and Rolls, R.J., The Law of Civil Procedure (1970), vol. 2, p. 638 [para. 158].

Counsel:

J. Gordon Petrie, Q.C., and James M. Petrie, for the appellant;

Bruce Judah, Q.C., and Marie T. Bérubé, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 18, 1998, by Daigle, C.J.N.B., Ryan and Drapeau, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

On November 26, 1999, the judgment was delivered for the Court of Appeal and the following opinions were filed:

Ryan, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 66;

Drapeau, J.A., concurring - see para­graphs 67 to 76;

Daigle, C.J.N.B., dissenting - see para­graphs 77 to 205.