Al's Steak House and Tavern Inc. et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., (1997) 102 O.A.C. 144 (CA)

• Judge: Finlayson, Charron and Rosenberg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 22, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 102 O.A.C. 144 (CA)

Al's Steak House v. Deloitte & Touche (1997), 102 O.A.C. 144 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.001

Al's Steak House and Tavern Inc. and Halim F. Saikali (plaintiffs/respondents) (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Francis Bryan Murphy and the Attorney General of Canada (defendants/appellant) (defendants/respondent)

(C19913, C20157)

Indexed As: Al's Steak House and Tavern Inc. et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Finlayson, Charron and Rosenberg, JJ.A.

July 22, 1997.

Summary:

On April 29, 1992, the plaintiffs were acquitted on charges of tax evasion. In March 1994, the plaintiffs sued the federal Crown under s. 3(a) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, alleging malicious prosecution and negligence on the part of National Revenue investigators and a federal Crown prosecutor. The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike out certain parts of the statement of claim on the basis that the claims were barred by s. 7 of the Public Authorities Act.

The motions judge struck out the portions of the statement of claim that alleged a cause of action based on negligence by the Nation­al Revenue investigators. The Attor­ney General appealed from the motion's judge refusal to strike out the portions of the state­ment of claim alleging malicious pros­ecu­tion. The plaintiffs appealed the order strik­ing out the allegations based on negli­gence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Crown - Topic 4152

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Practice - Time - [See Crown - Topic 4953 ].

Crown - Topic 4953

Actions against Attorney General - Prac­tice - Time - Plaintiffs sued the federal Crown alleging negligence and malicious prosecu­tion on the part of National Rev­enue inves­tigators and a Crown prosecutor - Section 32 of the federal Crown Liabil­ity and Proceedings Act provided that provincial limitation periods between "subject and subject" applied - Section 7(1) of the Ontario Public Authorities Protection Act provided a six month limi­tation period for bringing an action against a person acting in execution of a statutory or public duty - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the s. 7(1) limitation period was between "subject and subject" - Accordingly, s. 7(1), which specifically applied to "any alleged neglect or default", barred the negligence claim - The court refused to strike the malicious prosecution claim, where it was arguable that conduct moti­vated by malice was not within the scope of either a government investigator's or a public prosecutor's duties, and, there­fore, s. 7(1) would not apply.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7504

Actions against the Crown - General - Whether federal or provincial legislation applies - [See Crown - Topic 4953 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7584

Actions against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - Exercise of statutory or other public duty - [See Crown - Topic 4953 ].

Words and Phrases

Subject - The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the meaning of "subject" as used in s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50 - See paragraphs 11 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Sjouwerman v. Canada Post Corp. and Valance (1990), 37 O.A.C. 294 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 5].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 6].

German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 703 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H.L. Cas. 815 (H.L.), dist. [para. 20].

Life Publishing Co. v. Rose Publishing Co. (1906), 12 O.L.R. 386 (C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

R. v. Felton (1915), 25 C.C.C. 207 (Alta. C.A.), dist. [para. 21].

Arnerich v. R., [1942] N.Z.L.R. 380, dist. [para. 22].

Canada (Conseil des Ports Nationaux) v. Langelier et al., [1969] S.C.R. 60, refd to. [para. 24].

Feather v. R. (1865), 6 B & S 257, refd to. [para. 26].

Johnstone v. Pedlar, [1921] 2 A.C. 262, refd to. [para. 26].

Grossman v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 571, refd to. [para. 27].

Nisbet Shipping Co. v. R., [1953] 1 S.C.R. 480, refd to. [para. 30].

Toronto Transportation Commission v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 510, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Murray, [1967] S.C.R. 262, refd to. [para. 31].

Gartland Steamship Co. and LaBlanc v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 315, refd to. [para. 31].

David v. Woolcott and Kluger (1993), 63 O.A.C. 161 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Kelly v. Canada (1994), 80 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), not folld. [para. 37].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 38].

Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 2 C.T.C. 126; 66 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Ihnat v. Jenkins et al., [1972] 3 O.R. 629 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Vaillancourt et al. v. Watson et al. (1994), 69 O.A.C. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Cloudfoam Ltd. et al. v. Toronto Harbour Commissioners, [1969] 2 O.R. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 1].

Miliangos v. Frank (George) (Textiles) Ltd., [1976] A.C. 443 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

Perna v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, [1993] O.J. No. 451 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 48].

Alkasabi v. Ontario, [1994] O.J. No. 1503 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 48].

Croft v. Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board (1993), 15 O.R.(3d) 216 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 48].

Cascone v. Rodney et al. (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 618 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Ward v. Maracle (1995), 24 O.R.(3d) 148 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 48].

Ihnat v. Jenkins et al. (1972), 26 D.L.R.(3d) 138 (H.C.), affd. [1972] 3 O.R. 629; 29 D.L.R.(3d) 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Falloncrest Financial Corp. v. Ontario (1995), 27 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Nash v. Ontario - see Falloncrest Finan­cial Corp. v. Ontario.

Belanger (R.D.) & Associates Ltd. et al. v. Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. and Bitove Corp. (1991), 57 O.A.C. 81; 5 O.R.(3d) 778 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 50].

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

Prete v. Ontario et al. (1993), 68 O.A.C. 1; 16 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 653 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 32 [para. 9].

Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-38, sect. 7(1) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 82-3 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Emilio S. Binavince and Sheldon P. Massie, for plaintiffs/respondents and plaintiffs/appellants;

Barbara J. Nicholls, for defendants, Deloitte & Touche and Francis Bryan Murphy;

Arnold Fradkin, for the defen­dant/appellant, and defendant/respondent, Attorney General of Canada.

These appeals were heard on April 17, 1997, before Finlayson, Charron and Rosenberg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Rosenberg, J.A., released the following judgment for the court on July 22, 1997.