Paradis Honey Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 472 N.R. 75 (FCA)

• Judge: Nadon, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: Monday November 03, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 472 N.R. 75 (FCA);2015 FCA 89

Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 472 N.R. 75 (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: [2015] N.R. TBEd. AP.009

Paradis Honey Ltd., Honeybee Enterprises Ltd. and Rocklake Apiaries Ltd. (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen, The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (respondents)

(A-169-14; 2015 FCA 89; 2015 CAF 89)

Indexed As: Paradis Honey Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A.

April 8, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on the defendant's (1) negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, packages of live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 and (2) acting without lawful authority by doing the same and (3) abdicating authority to an improper third party to make decisions on improper considerations. The defendant moved for an order to strike the claim, without leave to amend, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2014), 449 F.T.R. 159, granted the motion with costs. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Pelletier, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal. The judgment below was set aside, including the order regarding costs, and the motion to strike was denied with no order as to costs. Pelletier, J.A., concurred only regarding the costs order.

Administrative Law - Topic 3214

Judicial review - General - Remedies - The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on, inter alia, Canada's negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 - A motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal on the basis that the facts pled supported a claim in negligence and bad faith - However, the court also indicated that the facts pled supported a claim for monetary relief in public law - While the plaintiffs had used the label "negligence", read generously, the allegations supported a claim for monetary relief in public law - Monetary relief based on public law principles qualified as the sort of novel claim that should not be struck on a motion to strike - The analytical framework that was used for determining the liability of private parties was not suitable for public authorities - The law of liability for public authorities "should be governed by principles on the public side of the divide, not the private law side" - The court discussed a "useful framework for analyzing when monetary relief may be had in an action in public law against a public authority" - There were two components: "unacceptability or indefensibility in the administrative law sense and the exercise of remedial discretion" - "This framework - the unacceptability or indefensibility in the administrative law sense of the public authority's conduct and the court's exercise of remedial discretion - should govern whether monetary relief in public law may be had by way of action" - See paragraphs 112 to 146.

Administrative Law - Topic 3214

Judicial review - General - Remedies - The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on, inter alia, Canada's negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 - A motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal on the basis that the facts pled supported a claim in negligence and bad faith - However, the court also indicated that the facts pled supported a claim for monetary relief in public law - In substance, the plaintiffs alleged that they were victims of abusive administrative action warranting monetary relief - Taking the allegations in the claim as proven, Canada's officials took it upon themselves to create and enforce an unauthorized, scientifically unsupported blanket policy preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their legal right to apply for importation permits - This gave rise to a number of grounds for finding unacceptability and indefensibility - The additional element of bad faith buttressed that conclusion - See paragraphs 147 to 149.

Animals - Topic 2425

Diseased animals - Regulation and control - Duty of Crown - The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on, inter alia, Canada's negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 - A motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal - The facts pled supported a claim in negligence and bad faith - The court below had not erred in finding that the claim should not be struck for want of proximity - The plaintiffs asserted that in specific interactions, Canada had assured them that imports affecting their interests would only be banned where there was scientific evidence of risk - Absent that evidence of risk and but for the blanket guideline prohibiting the importation of packages of honeybees, Canada had to issue importation permits under s. 160 of the Health of Animals Regulations - In light of that, the relationship between Canada and the plaintiffs was sufficiently close and direct to make it fair and reasonable that Canada was subject to a duty to respect the plaintiffs' interests, at least to the extent of making rational, evidence-based decisions following proper legislative criteria - See paragraphs 86 to 91.

Animals - Topic 2425

Diseased animals - Regulation and control - Duty of Crown - [See first Crown - Topic 1645].

Crown - Topic 1645

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclusions - Policies or "policy" decisions - The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on, inter alia, Canada's negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 - A motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal - The facts pled supported a claim in negligence and bad faith - The court below erred in finding that there were policy reasons for not recognizing a duty of care - Taking the allegations in the statement of claim as true, nothing implicated public policies or public duties in such a way that would trigger a policy bar - The public policy established by s. 160 of the Health of Animals Regulations favoured importation in appropriate circumstances - According to the plaintiffs, those circumstances existed and importation should have been allowed - There was no inconsistency between a private law duty of care and Canada's public duties - The court below erred in finding that the purpose behind the previous regulations, which had expired in 2006, somehow continued, supporting its blanket prohibition and in finding that recognizing a duty of care "could have" a chilling effect on Canada's performance of its duties - "Could have" set the bar too low - Finally, there was no possibility of the "indeterminate liability" asserted by Canada - The class of claimant was limited and the circumstances were uncommon - See paragraphs 92 to 101.

Crown - Topic 1645

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclusions - Policies or "policy" decisions - The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on, inter alia, Canada's negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 - A motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal - The facts pled supported a claim in negligence and bad faith - The court disagreed with the motion judge's reliance on British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2011 S.C.C.) as a basis for finding that the plaintiffs' claim was subject to a policy bar under the second branch of the Anns duty of care test - Imperial Tobacco did not establish "any hard-and-fast rule that decisions made under a general public duty, government policy or core policy are protected from a negligence claim ... If anything, Imperial Tobacco leaves us more uncertain than ever as to when the policy bar will apply." - See paragraphs 102 to 111.

Crown - Topic 1649

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclusions - Existence of alternative remedy - The plaintiffs' proposed class action sought damages based on, inter alia, Canada's negligence in imposing or enforcing a prohibition on, or denying import permits for, live honeybees from the U.S. since 2006 - A motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal on the basis that the facts pled supported a claim in negligence and bad faith - However, the court also rejected Canada's objection based on the plaintiffs' failure to bring an application for judicial review attacking the prohibition - The plaintiffs could only seek monetary relief by way of action - The claim did not explicitly seek remedies that could only be sought by way of judicial review - See paragraphs 150 to 152.

Crown - Topic 1712

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown for breach of statutory duty - Remedies - Damages - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3214].

Practice - Topic 2200

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3214].

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - [See first Animals - Topic 2425].

Torts - Topic 79

Negligence - Duty of care - Factors limiting or reducing scope of duty of care - [See both Crown - Topic 1645].

Torts - Topic 9167

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Regulators (e.g., Registrar of Mortgage Brokers, Department of Motor Vehicles, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, etc.) - [See first Animals - Topic 2425].

Cases Noticed:

Apotex Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. (2011), 414 N.R. 162; 2011 FCA 34, refd to. [para. 16].

Holland v. Saskatchewan et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551; 376 N.R. 316; 311 Sask.R. 197; 428 W.A.C. 197; 2008 SCC 42, refd to. [paras. 17, 142].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] UKHL 4, refd to. [paras. 18, 88].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, consd. [paras. 23, 87].

Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Sport Maska Inc. (2014), 462 N.R. 194; 2014 FCA 158, refd to. [para. 36].

Apotex Inc. v. Governor-in-Council et al. (2007), 370 N.R. 336; 2007 FCA 374, refd to. [para. 36].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [paras. 37, 114].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [paras. 47, 88].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [paras. 47, 88].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

McCullock-Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17; 321 N.R. 361; 2004 SCC 36, refd to. [paras. 66, 145].

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108; 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [paras. 70, 116].

Campbell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 427 N.R. 371; 2012 FCA 45, refd to. [para. 74].

Collins v. Canada (2011), 418 N.R. 23; 2011 FCA 140, refd to. [para. 80].

Ainsley Financial Corp. et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission et al. (1994), 77 O.A.C. 155; 21 O.R.(3d) 104; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 85].

Multi-Malls Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications) (1977), 14 O.R.(2d) 49; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Doctors Hospital v. Ontario (Minister of Health) et al. (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 164; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 220 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 85].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; 16 D.L.R.(2d) 689, refd to. [para. 87].

Chaput v. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834; 1 D.L.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 87].

Gershman v. Manitoba (Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board), [1976] 4 W.W.R. 406; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 114 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 87].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 90].

Sauer v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 143; 2007 ONCA 454, refd to. [para. 90].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Janssen Inc. et al. v. Teva Canada Ltd. et al., [2015] N.R. Uned. 12; 2015 FCA 36, refd to. [para. 97].

Slansky v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2013), 449 N.R. 28; 364 D.L.R.(4th) 112; 2013 FCA 199, refd to. [para. 108].

Cahoon v. Franks, [1967] S.C.R. 455, refd to. [para. 113].

Sivak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 406 F.T.R. 115; 2012 FC 272, refd to. [para. 113].

J2 Global Communications Inc. v. Protus IP Solutions Inc. (2008), 330 F.T.R. 176; 2008 FC 759, refd to. [para. 113].

Johnson & Johnson Inc. et al. v. Boston Scientific Ltd., [2005] 4 F.C.R. 110; 263 F.T.R. 242; 2004 FC 1672, refd to. [para. 113].

Conohan et al. v. Cooperators, [2002] 3 F.C. 421; 286 N.R. 364; 2002 FCA 60, refd to. [para. 114].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 114].

Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2), In re; White v. Vandervell Trustees Ltd., [1974] Ch. 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 116].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124; [1929] UKPC 86, refd to. [para. 116].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; [1932] UKHL 100, refd to. [para. 119].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 123].

B.D. et al. v. Children's Aid Society of Halton Region et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; 365 N.R. 302; 227 O.A.C. 161; 2007 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 123].

B.D. v. Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre - see B.D. et al. v. Children's Aid Society of Halton Region et al.

Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 132; 398 N.R. 20; 474 A.R. 1; 479 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 123].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689, refd to. [para. 124].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 124].

Swinamer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 445; 163 N.R. 291; 129 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 362 A.P.R. 321; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 18, refd to. [para. 124].

Lewis et al. v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1145; 220 N.R. 81; 98 B.C.A.C. 168; 161 W.A.C. 168; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 594, refd to. [para. 124].

Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504; 417 N.R. 126; 279 O.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 129].

Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority et al., [2013] 3 F.C. 605; 426 N.R. 131; 2011 FCA 347, refd to. [para. 129].

Canada (Conseil Des Ports Nationaux) v. Langelier et al., [1969] S.C.R. 60; 2 D.L.R.(3d) 81, refd to. [para. 131].

Roman Corp. et al. v. Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co. et al., [1973] S.C.R. 820; 36 D.L.R.(3d) 413, refd to. [para. 131].

McGillivray v. Kimber (1915), 52 S.C.R. 146; 26 D.L.R. 164, refd to. [para. 131].

Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5; 425 N.R. 22; 316 B.C.A.C. 1; 537 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 135].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 135].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 135].

Farwaha v. Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) (2014), 455 N.R. 157; 2014 FCA 56, refd to. [para. 135].

Pham v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2015] N.R. Uned. 53; [2015] UKSC 19, refd to. [para. 135].

Abraham et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 440 N.R. 201; 2012 FCA 266, refd to. [para. 136].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Almon Equipment Ltd., [2011] 4 F.C. 203; 405 N.R. 91; 2010 FCA 193, refd to. [para. 136].

Da Huang v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2014), 464 N.R. 112; 2014 FCA 228, refd to. [para. 136].

R. (ex rel. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council et al.) v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills), [2015] N.R. Uned. 18; [2015] UKSC 6, refd to. [para. 136].

Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810; 451 N.R. 80; 312 O.A.C. 169; 2013 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 137].

Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) - see Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) et al.

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society et al. v. Alberta et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261; 416 N.R. 198; 499 A.R. 345; 514 W.A.C. 345; 2011 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 137].

Enterprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 345; 2004 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 137].

Williams v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 249 O.A.C. 150; 95 O.R.(3d) 401; 2009 ONCA 378, refd to. [para. 137].

Eliopoulos et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) (2006), 217 O.A.C. 69; 82 O.R.(3d) 321; 276 D.L.R.(4th) 411 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

A.L. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006), 218 O.A.C. 150; 83 O.R.(3d) 512; 274 D.L.R.(4th) 431 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6; 397 N.R. 232; 2010 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 138].

Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. et al. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202; 163 N.R. 27; 115 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 334; 360 A.P.R. 334; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 138].

D'Errico v. Canada (Attorney General) (2014), 459 N.R. 167; 2014 FCA 95, refd to. [para. 138].

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Wilson (2015), 467 N.R. 201; 2015 FCA 17, refd to. [para. 138].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry; Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General), Cofsky and Alberta (Attorney General), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 140].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Winnipeg (Municipality), [1971] S.C.R. 957; 22 D.L.R.(3d) 470, refd to. [para. 142].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9, refd to. [para. 142].

LeBon v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2013), 444 N.R. 93; 2013 FCA 55, refd to. [para. 144].

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299; 2002 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 145].

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 145].

Al-Mhamad v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission et al., [2003] N.R. Uned. 2; 120 A.C.W.S.(3d) 351; 2003 FCA 45, refd to. [para. 151].

Hinton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 F.C. 476; 379 N.R. 336; 2008 FCA 215, refd to. [para. 151].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 152].

Adventure Tours Inc. v. St. John's Port Authority (2011), 420 N.R. 149; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 312; 2011 FCA 198, refd to. [para. 153].

Merchant Law Group et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency et al. (2010), 405 N.R. 160; 321 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 2010 FCA 184, refd to. [para. 153].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cane, Peter, Remedies Available in Judicial Review Proceedings, in Feldman, David, English Public Law (2004), p. 949 [para. 130].

Daly, Paul, Administrative Law: A Values-Based Approach, in Elliott, Mark, and Varuhas, Jason, Process and Substance in Public Law Adjudication (2015), generally [para. 138].

Daly, Paul, The Policy/Operational Distinction - A View from Administrative Law, in Harrington, Matthew, Compensation and the Common Law (2015), generally [para. 125].

Davis, Kenneth C., Administrative Law Treatise (1958), vol. 3, p. 487 [para. 142].

Elliott, Mark, and Varuhas, Jason, Process and Substance in Public Law Adjudication (2015), generally [para. 138].

Feldman, David, English Public Law (2004), p. 949 [para. 130].

Feldthusen, Bruce, Public Authority Immunity from Negligence Liability: Uncertain, Unnecessary, and Unjustified (2014), 92 Can. Bar Rev. 211, pp. 214, 216 to 217 [para. 125].

Harrington, Matthew, Compensation and the Common Law (2015), generally [para. 125].

Kristjansen, Freya, and Moreau, Stephen, Regulatory Negligence and Administrative Law (2012), 25 C.J.A.L.P. 103, p. 127 [para. 123].

Mullan, David, Roncarelli v. Duplessis and Damages for Abuse of Power (2010), 55 McGill L.J. 587, pp. 604 to 610 [para. 145].

Siebrasse, Norman, Liability of Public Authorities and Duties of Affirmative Action (2007), 57 U.N.B.L.J. 84, generally [para. 145].

United Kingdom, Law Commission, Consultation Paper No. 187, Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen (2010), generally [para. 130].

Counsel:

Daniel Carroll, Q.C., and Lily Nguyen, for the appellants;

Jaxine Oltean and Marlon Miller, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Field LLP, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 3, 2014, by Nadon, Pelletier and Stratas, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The court released its judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 8, 2015, including the following opinions:

Pelletier, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 75;

Stratas, J.A. (Nadon, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 76 to 154.