TeleZone Inc. v. Attorney General (Canada), 2008 ONCA 892

JurisdictionOntario
JudgeLaskin, Borins and Feldman, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2008 ONCA 892
Citation2008 ONCA 892,(2008), 245 O.A.C. 91 (CA),94 OR (3d) 19,303 DLR (4th) 626,40 CELR (3d) 183,86 Admin LR (4th) 163,[2008] CarswellOnt 7826,[2008] OJ No 5291 (QL),245 OAC 91,[2008] O.J. No 5291 (QL),(2008), 245 OAC 91 (CA),94 O.R. (3d) 19,303 D.L.R. (4th) 626,245 O.A.C. 91
Date20 October 2008
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)

TeleZone Inc. v. Can. (A.G.) (2008), 245 O.A.C. 91 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.034

TeleZone Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Attorney General of Canada (defendant/appellant)

G-Civil Inc. (plaintiff/appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (defendant/respondent)

Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Attorney General of Canada (defendant/appellant)

Michiel McArthur , Margaret Wilkinson and Mikkala Wilkinson, a minor by her Litigation Guardian Margaret Wilkinson (plaintiff/appellant) v. The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General for the Province of Ontario and James Blackler, also known as Jim Blackler (defendants/respondents)

(C48185; C46569; C47300; C46073; 2008 ONCA 892)

Indexed As: TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Borins and Feldman, JJ.A.

December 24, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiffs (TeleZone, G-Civil, Fielding and McArthur), commenced separate actions against the federal Crown, collectively claiming damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort and misfeasance in public office. The Crown, relying on Grenier v. Canada, a 2005 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, and s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA), claimed that jurisdiction lay in the Federal Court because an essential element of each plaintiff's claim involved an attack on the decision of a federal administrative board or tribunal. Applying Grenier, the Crown's position was that it was necessary for each plaintiff to first seek a prerogative remedy in the Federal Court since under s. 18(1) of the FCA that court had exclusive jurisdiction to grant prerogative remedies in respect to decisions of federal tribunals. Should a plaintiff succeed in the Federal Court, it could then commence a claim for damages in the Superior Court (or in the Federal Court, which under s. 17 of the FCA had concurrent jurisdiction). In the courts below, two judges held that the Federal Court had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims (G-Civil, [2006] O.T.C. Uned.1445, and McArthur, File No. 13720/01), while two judges held on a rule 21.01 motion, that it was not plain and obvious that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction (TeleZone, [2008] O.T.C. Uned.Q87, and Fielding, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. B02). G-Civil and McArthur appealed, arguing that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over their claims. The Attorney General of Canada appealed in the cases of TeleZone and Fielding, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction over the claims of the plaintiffs in each of the four appeals. The court held that the proper approach was to determine whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. If it did, then that ended the matter unless there was legislation, or an arbitral agreement, that clearly and unequivocally removed that jurisdiction. As a court of general jurisdiction, the Superior Court had jurisdiction over every conceivable claim, unless it was shown that it did not constitute a reasonable cause of action. Hence, jurisdiction lay in the Superior Court in each case unless removed by s. 18 of the FCA. In this case, s. 18 did not remove the Superior Court's jurisdiction. Thus the appeals of TeleZone and Fielding were dismissed and the appeals of G-Civil and McArthur were allowed.

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - [See fifth, seventh and eighth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 53

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction - Provincial appellate courts - [See third Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 4020

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Claims made under a statute of Canada or Charter - Damages claim for breach of Charter rights - [See ninth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Four appeals raised the issue of whether the jurisdiction over each of the plaintiff's claims against the federal Crown lay in the Superior Court of Ontario or in the Federal Court - Collectively, the claims were for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort and misfeasance in public office - Relying on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Grenier v. Canada (2005), and s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA), the Crown asserted that jurisdiction lay in the Federal Court because an essential element of each plaintiff's claim involved an attack on the decision of a federal administrative board or tribunal - Applying Grenier, the Crown's position was that it was necessary for the plaintiff to first seek a prerogative remedy in the Federal Court since under s. 18(1) of the FCA that court had exclusive jurisdiction to grant prerogative remedies in respect to decisions of federal tribunals - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims in each of the four appeals - The court held that the proper approach to determining the jurisdictional issue raised by these appeals was to determine whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's claim - If it did, that ended the matter unless there was legislation, or there was an arbitral agreement, that clearly and unequivocally removed that jurisdiction - As a court of general jurisdiction, the Superior Court had jurisdiction over every conceivable claim, unless it was shown that it did not constitute a reasonable cause of action - Hence, jurisdiction lay in the Superior Court in each case unless removed by s. 18 of the FCA - Here, s. 18 did not remove the Superior Court's jurisdiction - Section 18 dealt with remedies, not with jurisdiction - Section 17 of the FCA and s. 21 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act affirmed that the Superior Court had jurisdiction in all cases other than those in which the Federal Court was given exclusive jurisdiction - See paragraphs 91 to 93.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Four appeals raised the issue of whether the jurisdiction over each of the plaintiff's claims against the federal Crown lay in the Superior Court of Ontario or in the Federal Court - Collectively, the claims were for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort and misfeasance in public office - Relying on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Grenier v. Canada (2005), and s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA), the Crown asserted that jurisdiction lay in the Federal Court because an essential element of each plaintiff's claim involved an attack on the decision of a federal administrative board or tribunal - Applying Grenier, the Crown's position was that it was necessary for the plaintiff to first seek a prerogative remedy in the Federal Court since under s. 18(1) of the FCA that court had exclusive jurisdiction to grant prerogative remedies in respect to decisions of federal tribunals - Should the plaintiff succeed in the Federal Court, it could then commence a claim for damages in the Superior Court (or in the Federal Court, which under s. 17 of the FCA had concurrent jurisdiction) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims in each of the four appeals - The exclusive jurisdiction provision of the FCA, s. 18, which was central to all of the appeals, provided the Federal Court with exclusive original jurisdiction to issue a prerogative remedy or grant declaratory relief "against any federal board, commission or other tribunal" - To maintain that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over any of the claims, the Crown had to fit the plaintiffs' claims squarely within s. 18(1) - However, the court held that the Crown failed to do so - Section 18 did not give the Federal Court the power to take away the jurisdiction of the Superior Court except for the remedies it emanated - Section 18 did not deal with procedure - It dealt with remedies - In none of the cases was a remedy sought that came within the prerogative writs or extraordinary remedies of s. 18 - Section 18 did not empower the Federal Court to award damages, which were sought in each of the four cases - The court opined that to the extent that Grenier supported the position of the Crown, it was wrongly decided, although, in any event, it was not binding - See paragraph 94.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Four appeals raised the issue of whether the jurisdiction over each of the plaintiff's claims against the federal Crown lay in the Superior Court of Ontario or in the Federal Court - Collectively, the claims were for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort and misfeasance in public office - Relying on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Grenier v. Canada (2005), and s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA), the Crown asserted that jurisdiction lay in the Federal Court because an essential element of each plaintiff's claim involved an attack on the decision of a federal administrative board or tribunal - Applying Grenier, the Crown's position was that it was necessary for the plaintiff to first seek a prerogative remedy in the Federal Court since under s. 18(1) of the FCA that court had exclusive jurisdiction to grant prerogative remedies in respect to decisions of federal tribunals - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that to the extent Grenier supported the position of the Crown, it was wrongly decided, and not binding in any event - The court stated that "the procedure that it advocates would take litigants back to the days of Bleak House where they had to go from court to court until they were finally able to obtain their remedy. Moreover, if generally accepted, Grenier's insistence that actions in provincial superior courts against the Crown are precluded without a prior application for judicial review would have far reaching implications with respect to principles of Crown liability. In particular, the Crown's position as based on Grenier, would require split or multiple proceedings in different forums, waste scarce judicial resources, impose huge additional costs on plaintiffs, and subject every tort and contract claim against the Crown to a draconian 30-day limitation period" - See paragraph 100.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Four appeals raised the issue of whether the jurisdiction over each of the plaintiff's claims against the federal Crown lay in the Superior Court of Ontario or in the Federal Court pursuant to the exclusive jurisdiction provision (s. 18) of the Federal Courts Act (FCA) - Collectively, the claims were for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort and misfeasance in public office - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims in each of the four appeals - The court stated that "in summary, s. 17 of the FCA complements s. 21 of the CLPA [Crown Liability and Proceedings Act], both statutes conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the provincial superior courts and the Federal Court where claims, such as those advanced in the four cases that form this appeal, are made against the Crown. It is plain on its face that s. 18 does not constitute a bar, or a condition precedent, to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court over a claim for damages in contract or in tort against the Crown. Causes of action in contract or tort are distinct from the prerogative writs and extraordinary remedies described in s. 18. Shortly put, relief by way of damages is not a form of relief contemplated by s. 18" - See paragraph 95.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Four appeals raised the issue of whether the jurisdiction over each of the plaintiff's claims against the federal Crown lay in the Superior Court of Ontario or in the Federal Court - Collectively, the claims were for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort and misfeasance in public office - Relying on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Grenier v. Canada (2005), and s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act, the Crown asserted that jurisdiction lay in the Federal Court because an essential element of each plaintiff's claim involved an attack on the decision of a federal administrative board or tribunal - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in none of the cases was there a "collateral attack" on any administrative decision - No collateral attack could be discerned from either the pleadings or from the record - The doctrine had no application - Collateral attack was a defence and did not go to jurisdiction - See paragraphs 96 to 99 and 111.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Industry Canada rejected TeleZone's application for a licence to provide personal communication services in Canada - TeleZone sued the federal Crown in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for breach of contract, or in the alternative, for negligence, alleging that Industry Canada did not apply the licensing criteria fairly and in good faith to TeleZone's application - The Crown moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action - The Crown argued that in declining TeleZone's licence application, the Minister of Industry Canada was acting as a federal board, commission, or other tribunal as such, the decision could only be challenged by way of an application for judicial review in the Federal Court under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA) - A motions judge refused the motion - The Crown appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear TeleZone's claim - The claim in contract and tort was clearly within the Superior Court's jurisdiction and did not constitute a collateral attack on the decision to issue licences to other applicants - The facts pleaded in the statement of claim did not fall within the ambit of s. 18 of the FCA - The jurisdiction of the Superior Court could not depend on the result of a judicial review application as the Crown contended - See paragraphs 25 to 52 and 112.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - G-Civil submitted a tender to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada for repair work - The Crown disqualified the tender because it was incomplete - G-Civil sued the federal Crown in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for breach of contract - The Crown moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction - The Crown argued that in disqualifying G-Civil's tender, the Minister's representative was acting as a federal board, commission or other tribunal, and as such, the Minister's decision could only be challenged by way of an application for judicial review in the Federal Court under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (FCA) - A motions judge granted the motion - G-Civil appealed, arguing that Superior Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of its claim - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The motions judge erred in following Grenier v. Canada (FCA 2005) and in holding that Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over G-Civil's contract action - This was a tender case and was governed by Ron Engineering (SCC 1981) - G-Civil did not attack the administrative decision that disqualified its tender bid - The Crown was wrong to contend that G-Civil was collaterally attacking this decision and was, therefore, required to bring an application for prerogative remedy under s. 18 of the FCA - The Superior Court's jurisdiction was not taken away by s. 18 of the FCA - The matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court - See paragraphs 53 to 65 and 113.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The Government of Canada issued a series of orders culminating in a final order banning the export of PCB waste to the United States - Fielding sued the federal Crown in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for misfeasance in public office, alleging that the Minister of the Environment issued the orders for an improper purpose - The Crown moved to strike out Fielding's claim and to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction - The Crown argued that the orders in question constituted decisions of a federal board, commission or other tribunal within the meaning of the Federal Courts Act (FCA), and as such, the orders could only be challenged by way of an application for judicial review in the Federal Court - A motions judge dismissed the motion - The Crown appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge was correct in holding that the Superior Court had jurisdiction over Fielding's claim for damages for misfeasance in public office - There was no attack on the administrative decision that prevented it from exporting PCBs - The Crown was wrong in its theory, based on the 2005 Federal Court of Appeal decision in Grenier v. Canada, that because Fielding collaterally attacked the administrative decision, s. 18 of the FCA required that it apply for judicial review - There was no collateral attack - The Superior Court had jurisdiction and that jurisdiction was not removed by s. 18 of the FCA - See paragraphs 66 to 78 and 114.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - McArthur was continuously confined in involuntary solitary confinement (i.e., administrative segregation) for over four years - McArthur sued the Attorney General of Canada and the prison warden (the respondents), in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for the tort of wrongful or false imprisonment and for breach of his Charter rights - The respondents moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction - The Crown argued that the only way to challenge a decision to place an inmate in administrative segregation was by way of an application for judicial review in Federal Court pursuant to s. 18 the Federal Courts Act (FCA) - A motions judge granted the motion relying on the 2005 Federal Court of Appeal decision in Grenier v. Canada - McArthur appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in holding that the jurisdictional issue was "nailed by Grenier" - The court stated that if it was, Grenier was wrongly decided - The court rejected the Crown's argument that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because there was a statutory scheme for challenging assignments to solitary confinement which McArthur did not follow (i.e., in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations) - The court stated that that scheme did nothing more than give the inmate a hearing before a Segregation Review Board - It was not a true grievance procedure - The Segregation Review Board did not have the power to award damages - Therefore, McArthur's only recourse was to the court - The Superior Court had jurisdiction over his claim - It was not removed by the Regulation or by s. 18 of the FCA - In any event, there would be no point in challenging historic events that occurred 10 to 14 years ago by way of judicial review - See paragraphs 79 to 90 and 115.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See all Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 4028

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Claims against Crown and related claims - [See all Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 4039

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Civil actions - [See all Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5600

Provincial courts - General - Concurrent and conflicting jurisdiction - General - [See all Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5686

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Respecting federal boards or tribunals - [See all Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5692

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Contracts respecting matters within federal jurisdiction - [See first, fifth, sixth and seventh Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5693

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Respecting torts against Federal Crown - [See first, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5699

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Constitutional rights - [See ninth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 7402

Provincial courts - Ontario - Superior Court - Jurisdiction - General - [See all Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Crown - Topic 4001

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - General - [See first Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Crown - Topic 4005

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - General - For failure to issue licences - [See sixth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Practice - Topic 5374

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Collateral attack on administrative decision - [See fifth, seventh and eighth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Prisons - Topic 443

Actions against prison officers and authorities - Torts - False or arbitrary imprisonment - [See ninth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grenier v. Canada (2005), 344 N.R. 102; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 337 (F.C.A.), not folld. [para. 1].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 3].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 5].

Michie Estate v. Toronto (City) et al., [1968] 1 O.R. 266 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Mostyn v. Fabrigas (1774), 1 Cowp. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

80 Wellesley St. East Ltd. v. Fundy Bay Builders Ltd. et al., [1972] 2 O.R. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Gaignard et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 178 O.A.C. 77; 67 O.R.(3d) 611 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Fraser et al. v. Beach et al. (2005), 197 O.A.C. 113; 75 O.R.(3d) 383 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fernandes (2006), 215 O.A.C. 171; 82 O.R.(3d) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Beiko et al. v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines et al., [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 509; 2007 ONCA 860, refd to. [para. 13].

Khan Resources Inc. et al. v. W M Mining Co. LLC et al. (2006), 208 O.A.C. 204; 79 O.R.(3d) 411 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 165; 327 N.R. 160 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2004] 3 S.C.R. xiii; 338 N.R. 393, refd to. [para. 17].

Zarzour v. Canada (2000), 268 N.R. 235; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 284 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2001] 2 S.C.R. xiv; 275 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 19].

Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd. v. Ontario and Water Resources Commission, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111; 35 N.R. 40, refd to. [para. 21].

M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Co. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 619; 237 N.R. 334; 232 A.R. 360; 195 W.A.C. 360, refd to. [para. 21].

Tremblay v. Canada (2005), 280 F.T.R. 133 (F.C.), affd. (2006), 352 N.R. 367 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

G-Civil Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 1445; 58 C.L.R.(3d) 86 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 157 O.A.C. 278; 215 D.L.R.(4th) 496; 58 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), revd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40; 306 N.R. 335; 175 O.A.C. 363, refd to. [para. 44].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Gestion Complexe Cousineau (1989) Inc. v. Canada (Ministre des Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux), [1995] 2 F.C. 694; 184 N.R. 260 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Canada (Attorney General) v. S.D. Myers Inc., [2004] 3 F.C.R. 368; 244 F.T.R. 161 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 97].

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, refd to. [para. 97].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128, refd to. [para. 99].

Sauer v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 143 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2008), 389 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

Cloud et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 192 O.A.C. 239; 73 O.R.(3d) 401 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 344 N.R. 192; 207 O.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

Bonaparte v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lafrance Estate et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Lafrance Estate et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 169 O.A.C. 376; 64 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

144096 Canada Ltd. (USA) et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 168 O.A.C. 201; 63 O.R.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Al's Steak House and Tavern Inc. et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 144; 13 C.P.C.(4th) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Genge v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 270 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 182; 822 A.P.R. 182; 285 D.L.R.(4th) 259 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 104].

May et al. v. Ferndale Institution et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809; 343 N.R. 69; 220 B.C.A.C. 1; 362 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 105].

Fortier v. Longchamp, [1942] S.C.R. 240, refd to. [para. 108].

Halifax Insurance Co. of Canada v. Innopex Ltd. et al. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 356; 72 O.R.(3d) 522 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 343 N.R. 193; 207 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations (Can.), Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, sect. 19, sect. 20, sect. 21, sect. 22, sect. 23 [para. 2].

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 21(1) [para. 2].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2(1), sect. 17(1), sect. 17(2), sect. 18, sect. 18.1(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Thomas L. James, Karen Lovell and Dale Yurka, for the appellant, TeleZone Inc.;

Peter F.C. Howard, Eliot N. Kolers and Patrick J. Monahan, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Marc C. Doucet, for the appellant, G-Civil Inc.;

Robert MacKinnon and Richard Casanova, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada;

Patrick Bendin, for the appellant, Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc.;

John Terry and Andrew Finkelstein, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

John A. Ryder-Burbidge, for the appellant, Michiel McArthur, Margaret Wilkinson and Mikkala Wilkinson, a minor by her Litigation Guardian Margaret Wilkinson;

Derek Rasmussen, for the respondents, the Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General for the Province of Ontario and James Blackler, also known as Jim Blackler.

These appeals were heard on October 20, 2008, by Laskin, Borins and Feldman, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered on December 24, 2008, by Borins, J.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 practice notes
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 23, 2010
    ...that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 245 O.A.C. 91, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 17 of the Federal Courts Act and s. 21 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act conferred con......
  • Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia et al., (2011) 309 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • July 6, 2011
    ...of Environment, Lands and Parks), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. G94 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44]. TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 245 O.A.C. 91; 2008 ONCA 892, refd to. [para. Keewatin et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 332; 66 O.R.(3d) 370......
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 273 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 23, 2010
    ...that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 245 O.A.C. 91, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 17 of the Federal Courts Act and s. 21 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act conferred con......
  • ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JUNE 19 – JUNE 23, 2017)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • June 23, 2017
    ...and obvious that s.174 was engaged. The test, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Telezone Inc., 2008 ONCA 892, is whether “the Superior Court has jurisdiction, or it doesn’t have jurisdiction”. The Court of Appeal initially rejected the respondents’ arg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
60 cases
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 23, 2010
    ...that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 245 O.A.C. 91, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 17 of the Federal Courts Act and s. 21 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act conferred con......
  • Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia et al., (2011) 309 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • July 6, 2011
    ...of Environment, Lands and Parks), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. G94 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44]. TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 245 O.A.C. 91; 2008 ONCA 892, refd to. [para. Keewatin et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 332; 66 O.R.(3d) 370......
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 273 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 23, 2010
    ...that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 245 O.A.C. 91, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 17 of the Federal Courts Act and s. 21 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act conferred con......
  • Vihvelin v. New Brunswick Community College et al., 2015 NBCA 17
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
    • March 24, 2014
    ...et al. (2014), 419 N.B.R.(2d) 370; 1090 A.P.R. 370; 2014 NBQB 129, refd to. [para. 26]. McArthur v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 245 O.A.C. 91; 2008 ONCA 892; affd. [2010] 3 S.C.R. 626; 410 N.R. 55; 273 O.A.C. 55; 2010 SCC 63, refd to. [para. TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JUNE 19 – JUNE 23, 2017)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • June 23, 2017
    ...and obvious that s.174 was engaged. The test, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Telezone Inc., 2008 ONCA 892, is whether “the Superior Court has jurisdiction, or it doesn’t have jurisdiction”. The Court of Appeal initially rejected the respondents’ arg......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 16 ' November 20, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 24, 2020
    ...15, s. 89, Judicial Review Procedure Act, s. 8, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 21.01(3)(a), TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 ONCA 892, aff'd 2010 SCC 62, Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, Piko v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1998), 167 D.L.R. (4th) 479 (Ont. C.A.), leave to ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Year in review: developments in Canadian law in 2008.
    • Canada
    • University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review Vol. 67 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...[Alan Hinton]. (324) Telezone v AG (Can); G-Civil v The Queen; Fielding Chemical Technologies v AG (Can); Michiel McArthur v AG (Can), 2008 ONCA 892. (325) Ibid. at para. (326) Ibid. at para. 96. (327) R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 [Mahalingan]. (328) Grdic v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 810......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT