Strickland et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 432 F.T.R. 152 (FC)

• Judge: Gleason, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 432 F.T.R. 152 (FC);2013 FC 475

Strickland v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 432 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: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.017

Robert T. Strickland, George Connon, Roland Auer, Iwona Auer-Grzesiak, Mark Auer and Vladimir Auer by his Litigation Representative Roland Auer (applicants) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-2064-12; 2013 FC 475; 2013 CF 475)

Indexed As: Strickland et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Gleason, J.

May 6, 2013.

Summary:

The applicants applied for judicial review, seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires the Divorce Act. The Attorney General of Canada moved to have the application dismissed, raising issues relating to standing and collateral attack.

The Federal Court granted the motion and dismissed the judicial review application.

Administrative Law - Topic 24

Abuse of process - What constitutes - [See both Practice - Topic 5408.1 ].

Courts - Topic 4043

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Declaratory relief - [See Courts - Topic 5600 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.4

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Judicial review applications - Standing - The applicants applied for judicial review, seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act - The Attorney General of Canada moved to have the application dismissed for want of standing - The Federal Court held that none of the applicants possessed public interest standing and only two of the applicants (Strickland and Auer) possessed private standing to challenge the vires of the Guidelines - Merely being impacted by an order applying the Guidelines did not afford an individual private standing to challenge the Guidelines, thus only Strickland and Auer who were subject to support orders had private standing - None of the applicants met the test for public interest standing as there was another effective way to bring the issue before the courts - See paragraphs 32 to 41.

Courts - Topic 4206

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Particular matters - Divorce (incl. custody) - [See Courts - Topic 5600 and second Practice - Topic 5408.1 ].

Courts - Topic 5600

Provincial courts - General - Concurrent and conflicting jurisdiction - General - The applicants applied for judicial review, seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act - The Federal Court held that there was concurrent jurisdiction between it and the provincial superior courts over applications such as this one, which involved a challenge to the vires of the Guidelines as a matter of administrative as opposed to constitutional law - See paragraphs 11 to 31.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See Courts - Topic 4071.4 ].

Practice - Topic 229

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Declaratory actions - [See Courts - Topic 4071.4 ].

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - General - Collateral attack - Strickland paid child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines pursuant to a interim agreement reached in a court-mandated mediation session - Strickland applied for judicial review, seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court held that Strickland's application was an impermissible collateral attack on the agreement reached in the context of his family proceedings and an abuse of process - See paragraphs 42 to 48.

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - General - Collateral attack - Auer was subject to a child support order in accordance with Federal Child Support Guidelines - The latest order of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench provided that it could be varied depending on the outcome of Auer's application for judicial review in Federal Court seeking to have the Federal Child Support Guidelines declared ultra vires s. 26.1 of the Divorce Act - The Attorney General of Canada sought to have the judicial review application dismissed, claiming that it was an impermissible collateral attack on a court order and an abuse of process - The Federal Court held that in light of the without prejudice order providing for variation depending on the outcome of the judicial review application, the doctrine of abuse of process and the rule against collateral attack did not prevent Auer from instituting his application - The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear Auer's application and returned it to the Alberta court for a decision - See paragraphs 49 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 F.C. 28; 163 F.T.R. 209 (T.D.), revd. in part (2001), 270 N.R. 275; 2001 FCA 144, affd. (2003), 300 N.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 245 F.T.R. 42; 2004 FC 85, refd to. [para. 13].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1993), 67 F.T.R. 98 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Canada (2008), 385 N.R. 1; 2008 FCA 229, refd to. [para. 14].

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia.

Williams v. Kaplan (1983), 1 O.A.C. 275; 45 O.R.(2d) 291; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 329 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Groupe des éleveurs de vollailes de l'est de l'Ontario v. Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, [1985] 1 F.C. 280; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 151 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada (Attorney General) (1993), 113 Sask.R. 99; 52 W.A.C. 99; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Messageries Publi-Maison Ltée v. Société canadienne des postes, [1996] R.J.Q. 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

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. 26].

McArthur v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 626; 410 N.R. 55; 273 O.A.C. 55; 2010 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 27].

Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2010] 3 S.C.R. 648; 410 N.R. 82; 2010 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Food Inspection Agency v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada et al., [2010] 3 S.C.R. 657; 410 N.R. 94; 2010 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 27].

Manuge v. Canada, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 672; 410 N.R. 113; 2010 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 27].

Premi v. Khodeir, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. J80; 179 A.C.W.S.(3d) 880 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 185 O.A.C. 60; 238 D.L.R.(4th) 517 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 34].

Zeyha & Collins v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] Sask.R. Uned. 217; 2004 SKCA 157, refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 43].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 43].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422; 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 43].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Figliola - see Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.

Cunningham v. Moran et al. (2011), 283 O.A.C. 137; 2011 ONCA 476, refd to. [para. 44].

Grenon v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 421 A.R. 107; 2007 ABQB 403 (Master), refd to. [para. 45].

Khodeir v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. F38; 2009 CarswellOnt 4483 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 46].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Domm (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 262; 31 O.R.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Shams v. MacDonald (2008), 174 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1026 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

Wilson, Re, [1937] O.J. No. 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Jagtoo et al. v. 407 ETR Concession Co. et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 719; 106 A.C.W.S.(3d) 450 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

Porter v. Anytime Custom Mechanical Ltd. et al. (2007), 412 A.R. 50; 404 W.A.C. 50; 2007 ABCA 208, refd to. [para. 53].

Carleton University v. Geonetix Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 745; 106 A.C.W.S.(3d) 585 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

Mahmood (Bankrupt), Re, [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 625; 2011 ONSC 625, refd to. [para. 53].

Logan et al. v. Harper et al., [2004] O.T.C. 866; 72 O.R.(3d) 706 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 53].

Goulding v. Ternoey (1982), 35 O.R.(2d) 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Palmer et al. v. Rucker et al. (1972), 268 So. 2d 773, refd to. [para. 54].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 61, refd to. [para. 59].

Action des Nouvelles Conjointes du Québec v. Canada (2004), 253 F.T.R. 258; 2004 FC 797, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 15.1 [para. 18]; sect. 26.1 [para. 1].

Divorce Act Regulations (Can.), Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175, generally [para. 1].

Federal Child Support Guidelines - see Divorce Act Regulations (Can.).

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18(1), sect. 18.1(3) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Holland, Denys C., and McGowan, John P., Delegated Legislation in Canada (1989), p. 247 [para. 28].

Counsel:

No appearance, for the applicants;

No appearance, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This motion was considered by Gleason, J., of the Federal Court on December 14, 2012, who delivered the following decision in Edmonton, Alberta, on May 6, 2013.