Pfeiffer v. Redling et al., (1996) 116 F.T.R. 173 (TD)

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 116 F.T.R. 173 (TD)

Pfeiffer v. Redling (1996), 116 F.T.R. 173 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

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

Sydney H. Pfeiffer (requérant) v. Georges F. Redling, Marc Mayrand, Marc LaMarre, Brian P. Doyle, Uwe Manski, et le Procureur Général du Canada (intimés)

(T-2127-95)

Pfeiffer et Pfeiffer (requérante) v. Georges F. Redling, Marc Mayrand, Marc Lamarre, Brian P. Doyle, Uwe Manski, et le Procureur Général du Canada (intimés) et Guylaine Houle (intervenante)

(T-2130-95)

Indexed As: Pfeiffer v. Redling et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

May 2, 1996.

Summary:

Pfeiffer & Pfeiffer and its president S. Pfeiffer were licensed bankruptcy trustees. The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appointed a panel under ss. 14.01 and 14.02 of the Bankruptcy Act to consider whether the bankruptcy trustees' licences should be cancelled. The trustees filed a motion for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that ss. 14.01 and 14.02 were contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The panel dismissed the motion, holding that it did not have power to determine constitutional questions. The trustees applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - Interim applications - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3348 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - Practice - Time for application - The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appointed a panel under ss. 14.01 and 14.02 of the Bankruptcy Act to consider cancelling bankruptcy trustees' licences - The trustees filed a motion challenging the panel's jurisdiction on the basis that ss. 14.01 and 14.02 were unconstitutional - The panel dismissed the motion ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to determine constitutional questions - The trustees applied for judicial review - The Crown argued that the application was premature because the panel's decision was interlocutory - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that since the issues involved an attack on the very existence of the tribunal there was a special reason permitting judicial review at this stage of the proceedings - See paragraphs 14 to 20.

Administrative Law - Topic 9013

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction - Constitutional questions - The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appointed a panel under ss. 14.01 and 14.02 of the Bankruptcy Act to consider cancelling bankruptcy trustees' licences - The trustees filed a motion challenging the panel's jurisdiction on the basis that ss. 14.01 and 14.02 were contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the principles of natural justice - The panel dismissed the motion ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to determine constitutional questions - The trustees applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the panel correctly ruled that it did not have the power to determine the constitutional questions submitted - See paragraphs 14 to 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 8006

Canadian Bill of Rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Right to a fair hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice - The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appointed a panel under ss. 14.01 and 14.02 of the Bankruptcy Act to consider cancelling a corporate bankruptcy trustee's licence - The trustee filed a motion challenging the panel's jurisdiction, arguing, inter alia, that ss. 14.01 and 14.02 were contrary to s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - The panel dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction - The trustee applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the panel did not have jurisdiction to deal with the s. 2(e) issue - The court ruled that the corporate trustee could not rely on s. 2(e) where the revocation of the licence did not meet the definition of a "right" since this was merely a privilege - See paragraphs 43 to 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9013 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the approach to be taken when the issue is whether a tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of s. 24(1) of the Charter - See paragraphs 28 to 33.

Words and Phrases

Person - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the word "person" in s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, included a corporation - See paragraphs 44, 45.

Cases Noticed:

Szczecka v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1995), 170 N.R. 58 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd. et al. (1994), 86 F.T.R. 77 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Laflamme v. Canada (Ministre de l'Industrie, des Sciences et de la Technologie) et al., [1995] 3 F.C. 174; 96 F.T.R. 200 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Danmour Shoes Co., Re, [1974] 1 F.C. 22; 1 N.R. 422 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Anti-Dumping Act and Danmour Shoe Co., Re - see Danmour Shoes Co., Re.

Salinas v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 52 F.T.R. 7 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Staff Relations Board (Can.) et al., [1990] 1 F.C. 297; 31 F.T.R. 107 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Bova v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board (Can.), [1990] 120 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Mahabir v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 133; 137 N.R. 377 refd to. [para. 19].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 21].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 121, refd to. [para. 21].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, refd to. [para. 21].

Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75; 192 N.R. 161; 70 B.C.A.C. 1; 115 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Gill and Civil Tribunal (Can.), [1992] 3 F.C. 3; 52 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 29].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Racette-Villeneuve (1995), 112 F.T.R. 300 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 42].

Dywidag Systems International Canada Ltd. v. Zutphen Brothers Construction Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 705; 106 N.R. 11; 97 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 258 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 42].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission, [1984] 2 F.C. 410; 55 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 3].

National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 F.C. 208; 21 F.T.R. 33 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [1985] 1 F.C. 856; 62 N.R. 117 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

MacBain v. Lederman - see MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al.

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Wilson v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1988), 53 D.L.R.(4th) 171 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 4].

Howard v. Architectural Institute of British Columbia (1989), 47 C.R.R. 328; 40 B.C.L.R.(2d) 315 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 4].

Richardson and Collins v. Association of Professional Engineers, [1990] 1 W.W.R. 709 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 4].

Harvey v. Law Society of Newfoundland (1992), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 339; 292 A.P.R. 339; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 487 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 4].

Ptack v. Comité de l'Ordre des Dentistes du Quebec, [1993] R.L. 305 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Joys v. Minister of National Revenue (1995), 189 N.R. 175; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, sect. 14.01, sect. 14.02 [para. 13].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, sect. 2(e) [para. 44].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 8]; sect. 24(1) [para. 21].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 23].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 5 [para. 14]; sect. 18(3), sect. 57 [para. 40].

Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-11, generally [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dussault, René, and Borgeat, Louis, Traité de droit administratif, 2e éd. 1984, vol. 1, pp. 156 to 163 [para. 21].

Garant, P., Droit administratif, 3e éd., 1991, vol. 1, pp. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 [para. 21].

Garant, P., Précis de droit des administrations publiques, 1987, pp. 65, 66, 76, 77 [para. 21].

Petit Larousse, 1985 [para. 53].

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th Ed. 1986) [para. 54].

Counsel:

Gérald R. Tremblay and Louis Brousseau, for the applicants;

Claude Joyal and Marcel Gauvreau, for the respondents;

Bernard Boucher, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy, Tétrault, Montréal, Quebec, for the applicants;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents;

Bélanger, Sauvé, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor.

This application was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on March 20, 1996, before Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on May 2, 1996.