St-Jacques v. Canada, (2004) 259 F.T.R. 152 (FC)

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 07, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 259 F.T.R. 152 (FC);2004 FC 1272

St-Jacques v. Can. (2004), 259 F.T.R. 152 (FC)

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: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.022

Steven St-Jacques (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-2206-03; 04-T-20; 2004 FC 1272; 2004 CF 1272)

Indexed As: St-Jacques v. Canada

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

September 16, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming reimbursement of monies overpaid for employment insurance premiums ($1,132.48). The defendant moved to strike the action. Consequently, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, incorporating an application for judicial review of the decisions of the Employment Insurance Commission which set the premium rates for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. He moved for the judicial review to proceed as an action. The plaintiff further moved for an extension of time to file his application for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the defendant's motion to strike the statement of claim. The court dismissed the plaintiff's motions.

Courts - Topic 4071.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - General - The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming reimbursement of monies overpaid for employment insurance premiums ($1,132.48) - The defendant moved to strike the action - Consequently, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, incorporating an application for judicial review of the decisions of the Employment Insurance Commission which set the premium rates - The Federal Court allowed the defendant's motion - The court held that the plaintiff's statement of claim was irregular on its face - The combination in the same proceeding of an action against the Crown and an application for judicial review challenging the validity of the decisions of a federal commission was improper - The court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the action as the duty to reimburse alleged by the plaintiff could only come into being if a competent court set aside the disputed decisions of the Commission on a judicial review application - That could only be done through the exercise of powers that the court had under s. 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act - The plaintiff's action against the Crown was premature and inadmissible - The court struck the claim because it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action - See paragraphs 5 to 16.

Courts - Topic 4075

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Commencement of action - [See Courts - Topic 4071.1 ].

Practice - Topic 73

Actions - Commencement of - Choice of method of commencement of proceedings - Action v. application - [See Courts - Topic 4071.1 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Courts - Topic 4071.1 ].

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 498

Assessments and premiums - Premiums - Overpayments - Refunds - [See Courts - Topic 4071.1 ].

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 521

Assessments and premiums - Appeals and judicial review - General - [See Courts - Topic 4071.1 ].

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 527

Assessments and premiums - Appeals and judicial review - Time for (incl. extension of time) - The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming reimbursement of monies overpaid for employment insurance premiums ($1,132.48) - Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim, incorporating an application for judicial review from the decisions of the Employment Insurance Commission which set the premium rates for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 - The plaintiff moved for an extension of the time for filing the application for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the motion - The court held that the plaintiff did not meet all of the criteria in order to obtain an extension of time - Further, the court stated that "allowing a contributor to challenge the Commission's decisions so late and beyond the statutory deadline (approximately seven years in the case of the first decision concerned) will inevitably create uncertainty in the government's decisions and cause the defendant serious hardship, especially as here the plaintiff also wants his application for judicial review to be treated and proceeded with like an action for purposes of a proposed class action by millions of contributors to the employment insurance plan" - See paragraphs 17 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

Temple v. Minister of National Revenue (2001), 214 F.T.R. 305 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Martel et al. v. Samson Indian Band et al. (1998), 159 F.T.R. 195 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Creed v. Canada, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 86 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Van Nguyen v. Can. (1997), 134 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Shaw v. Canada (1999), 167 F.T.R. 233 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Zarzour v. Canada, [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 995 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Szebenyi v. Canada, [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 797 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Zubi v. Canada (1993), 71 F.T.R. 168 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Monit International Inc. v. Canada (2004), 255 F.T.R. 1 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Molaison v. Canada (1993), 73 F.T.R. 253 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général) (2004), 327 N.R. 160 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Lake Babine Indian Band et al. v. Williams et al. (1996), 194 N.R. 44 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Syndicat national des employés d'aluminium d'Arvida Inc. v. Canada (Procureur général), [2003] J.Q. No. 15801 (C.S.), refd to. [para. 17].

Belmonte et al. v. Longshoremen's Union CUPE Local 375 et al., [2004] N.R. Uned. 202; 2004 FCA 141, refd to. [para. 19].

Lancashire v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1997), 220 N.R. 54 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Caisse Populaire Desjardins Maniwaki v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 681 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

Benoît Gamache and David Bourgoin, for the plaintiff;

Carole Bureau and Linda Mercier, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Bourgoin, Sirois, Gamache, Quebec, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, for the defendant.

These motions were heard on September 7, 2004, at Montreal, Quebec, before Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on September 16, 2004.