TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)

JudgeBinnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateDecember 23, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2010), 410 N.R. 1 (SCC);2010 SCC 62

TeleZone Inc. v. Can. (A.G.) (2010), 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)

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: [2010] N.R. TBEd. DE.035

Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. TeleZone Inc. (respondent)

(33041; 2010 SCC 62; 2010 CSC 62)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

December 23, 2010.

Summary:

The Minister of Industry Canada rejected TeleZone's application for a licence to provide personal communication services in Canada (i.e., a cell phone network). TeleZone sued the federal Crown in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for breach of contract (tender), negligence, or alternatively, unjust enrichment arising out of the monies it had thrown away on the application. The Attorney General of Canada sought to have the action dismissed for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Attorney General challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court to proceed with the claim for compensation unless and until TeleZone obtained from the Federal Court of Canada an order quashing the Minister's decision. TeleZone countered that its claim was based on causes of action that were distinct from an application for judicial review. The Attorney General argued that TeleZone's claim constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Minister's order. Such a collateral attack was barred, it was argued, by the grant to the Federal Court of exclusive judicial review jurisdiction in relation to decisions of all federal boards, commissions or other tribunals (Federal Courts Act, s. 18). The Attorney General relied on a line of cases in the Federal Court of Appeal to that effect, and in particular Grenier v. Canada (FCA 2005) (i.e., the "Grenier principle").

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2007] O.T.C. Uned. Q87, dismissed the Attorney General's motion on the ground that it was not plain and obvious 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 concurrent jurisdiction on the superior courts and the Federal Court for claims against the Crown. The Ontario Superior Court, as a court of general and inherent jurisdiction, could entertain any cause of action in the absence of legislation or an arbitration agreement to the contrary. Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act removed from the superior courts' jurisdiction the prerogative writs and extraordinary remedies listed. Since the relief sought by TeleZone (damages) was not listed in s. 18, the court concluded that the Superior Court continued to have jurisdiction. The Attorney General appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Grenier principle and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter and the remedies sought by TeleZone. That jurisdiction included the authority to determine every legal and factual element necessary for the granting or withholding of the remedies sought unless such authority was taken away by statute. The Federal Courts Act did not, by clear and direct statutory language, oust the jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts to deal with these common law and equitable claims, including the potential "unlawfulness" of government orders. That being the case, the Superior Court had jurisdiction to proceed.

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the doctrine of collateral attack - The court noted that the rule was a judicial creation (that had to yield to a contrary legislative enactment) based on general considerations related to the administration of justice - The doctrine was intended to prevent a party from circumventing the effect of a decision rendered against it - See paragraphs 60 to 68.

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - [See first, second and sixth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction (incl. parens patriae jurisdiction and jurisdiction to stay an action) - [See fourth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - According to the Grenier principle (FCA 2005), a litigant had to seek judicial review under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act, before pursuing a damages action under s. 17 if the lawfulness of an administrative decision or order was in issue, otherwise a damages action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on an administrative decision - The two step Grenier principle was also applied by some provincial superior courts, thereby ousting provincial court jurisdiction until the litigant pursued judicial review under s. 18 - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Grenier principle - See paragraphs 1 to 81 - The court stated that "If a claimant seeks to set aside the order of a federal decision maker, it will have to proceed by judicial review, as the Grenier court held. However, if the claimant is content to let the order stand and instead seeks compensation for alleged losses (as here), there is no principled reason why it should be forced to detour to the Federal Court for the extra step of a judicial review application (itself sometimes a costly undertaking) when that is not the relief it seeks. Access to justice requires that the claimant be permitted to pursue its chosen remedy directly and, to the greatest extent possible, without procedural detours" - See paragraph 19.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - According to the Grenier principle (FCA 2005), a litigant had to seek judicial review under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act, before pursuing a damages action under s. 17 if the lawfulness of an administrative decision or order was in issue, otherwise a damages action constituted an impermissible attack on an administrative decision - The two step Grenier principle was also applied by some provincial superior courts, thereby ousting provincial court jurisdiction until the litigant pursued judicial review under s. 18 - The Attorney General of Canada claimed that the Grenier principle should be sustained on the basis of the collateral attack doctrine - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the Grenier principle and the collateral attack doctrine and interpreted ss. 17 and 18 of the Federal Courts Act - The court held that the Attorney General's collateral attack argument could not succeed because: (1) the doctrine of collateral attack, while available as a defence in appropriate situations, was not an argument against provincial superior court jurisdiction nor did it justify inserting the Federal Court into every claim for damages predicated on an allegedly unlawful government decision; (2) in this case the litigant was not seeking to avoid the consequences of the ministerial order issued against it - On the contrary, the ministerial order and the financial losses allegedly consequent on that order constituted the foundation of the damages claim; and (3) judicial doctrine had to yield to a contrary statutory enactment (i.e., the s. 17 statutory grant of concurrent jurisdiction defeated the Attorney General's collateral attack submission) - See paragraphs 60 to 68.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - According to the Grenier principle (FCA 2005), a litigant had to seek judicial review under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act, before pursuing a damages action under s. 17 if the lawfulness of an administrative decision or order was in issue, otherwise a damages action constituted an impermissible attack on an administrative decision - The two step Grenier principle was also applied by some provincial superior courts, thereby ousting provincial court jurisdiction until the litigant pursued judicial review under s. 18 - The Attorney General of Canada claimed that the Grenier principle should be sustained on the basis of the defence of statutory authority - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this was a matter of defence, not jurisdiction - The court noted that the defence of statutory authority was regularly interpreted and applied by the provincial superior courts - If a provincial superior court (or the Federal Court under s. 17) found that the government had a good case based on statutory authority, it would simply dismiss the claimant's action - See paragraphs 69 to 74.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - According to the Grenier principle (FCA 2005), a litigant had to seek judicial review under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act, before pursuing a damages action under s. 17 if the lawfulness of an administrative decision or order was in issue, otherwise a damages action constituted an impermissible attack on an administrative decision - The two step Grenier principle was also applied by some provincial superior courts, thereby ousting provincial court jurisdiction until the litigant pursued judicial review under s. 18 - The Attorney General of Canada claimed that disregarding the Grenier principle would risk putting juridical review of federal decision makers back in the provincial superior courts dressed up as damages (i.e., the "artful pleader" would forum-shop by the way the case was framed) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that no amount of artful pleading in a damages case would succeed in setting aside an administrative order as such relief was not available in provincial superior court - The court (Binnie, J.) stated that "Where a plaintiff's pleading alleges the elements of a private cause of action, I think the provincial superior court should not in general decline jurisdiction on the basis that the claim looks like a case that should be pursued on judicial review. If the plaintiff has a valid cause of action for damages, he or she is normally entitled to pursue it" - The court noted, however, that there was always a residual discretion in the inherent jurisdiction of the provincial superior court, as well as the Federal Court, to stay a damages claim because in its essential character, it was a claim for judicial review with only a thin pretence to a private wrong - See paragraphs 75 to 78.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act gave the Federal Court exclusive original jurisdiction to judicially review federal decision makers - Section 17 gave the Federal Court concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief was claimed against the federal Crown (i.e., parties were to institute civil claims against the Federal Crown in the superior courts of the provinces or the Federal Court) - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted these provisions - See paragraphs 47 to 59.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The Minister of Industry Canada rejected TeleZone's application for a licence to provide personal communication services in Canada (i.e., a cell phone network) - TeleZone sued the federal Crown in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for breach of contract (tender), negligence, or alternatively, unjust enrichment arising out of the monies it had thrown away on the licence application - The Attorney General of Canada claimed that the provincial superior court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, claiming that according to Grenier v. Canada (2005 FCA), Telezone first had to pursue judicial review proceedings in Federal Court - The Attorney General argued that the detour to the Federal Court was necessary because the damages action represented a "collateral attack" on the Minister's decision prohibited by "inferences" derived from s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that in this case TeleZone was not attempting to nullify or set aside the Minister's order or to deprive the Minister's decision of any legal effect - The court (Binnie, J.) stated that "To the extent that TeleZone's claim can be characterized as a collateral attack on the Minister's order (i.e., because the order failed to include TeleZone), I conclude, for the reasons discussed, that the grant of concurrent jurisdiction to determine claims against the Crown to the provincial superior courts negates any inference the Crown seeks to draw that Parliament intended the detour to the Federal Court advocated by Grenier. The TeleZone claim as pleaded is dominated by private law considerations. In a different case, on different facts, the Attorney General is free to raise 'collateral attack' as a defence and the superior court will consider and deal with it. The Superior Court of Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and has the power to grant the remedy of damages. There is nothing in the Federal Courts Act to prevent the Ontario Superior Court from adjudicating this claim ..." - See paragraphs 79 to 81.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The Minister of Industry Canada rejected TeleZone's application for a licence to provide personal communication services in Canada (i.e., a cell phone network) - TeleZone sued the federal Crown in the Superior Court of Ontario for damages for breach of contract (tender), negligence, or alternatively, unjust enrichment arising out of the monies it had thrown away on the licence application - The Attorney General of Canada claimed that the provincial superior court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, claiming that according to Grenier v. Canada (2005 FCA), Telezone first had to pursue judicial review proceedings in Federal Court - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "In the present case, the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter and the remedies sought by TeleZone. That jurisdiction includes the authority to determine every legal and factual element necessary for the granting or withholding of the remedies sought unless such authority is taken away by statute. The Federal Courts Act does not, by clear and direct statutory language, oust the jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts to deal with these common law and equitable claims, including the potential 'unlawfulness' of government orders. That being the case, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to proceed" - See paragraph 6.

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 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 sixth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5693

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Respecting torts against Federal Crown - [See sixth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 7402

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

Crown - Topic 1646

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclusions - Statutory authority - [See third Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Crown - Topic 4001

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - General - [See all 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 ].

Crown - Topic 4153

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

Practice - Topic 73

Actions - Commencement of - Choice of method of commencement of proceedings - Action v. application - [See first Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Practice - Topic 5374

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Collateral attack on administrative decision - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 574 and first, second and sixth Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Cases Noticed:

Grenier v. Canada, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 287; 344 N.R. 102; 2005 FCA 348, overruled [para. 2].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38; 356 N.R. 83; 235 B.C.A.C. 1; 388 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 26].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 28].

Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario et al. v. Campbell-High et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 116; 58 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2003] 1 S.C.R. vii; 320 N.R. 188; 191 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 28].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 28].

Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339; 395 N.R. 115; 337 Sask.R. 260; 464 W.A.C. 260; 2009 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 30].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 31].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 31].

Holland v. Saskatchewan et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551; 376 N.R. 316; 311 Sask.R. 197; 428 W.A.C. 197; 2008 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

Hinton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 F.C.R. 476; 379 N.R. 336; 2008 FCA 215, refd to. [para. 37].

Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food) et al., [2009] 3 F.C.R. 568; 384 N.R. 85; 2008 FCA 362, refd to. [paras. 38, 46].

Donovan et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 273 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 116; 833 A.P.R. 116; 2008 NLCA 8, refd to. [para. 39].

Lidstone v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) (2008), 286 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 244; 883 A.P.R. 244; 2008 PESCTD 6, refd to. [para. 39].

River Valley Poultry Farm Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 248 O.A.C. 222; 95 O.R.(3d) 1; 2009 ONCA 326, refd to. [para. 39].

Los Angeles Salad Co. et al. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 109; 92 B.C.L.R.(4th) 379; 2009 BCSC 109; 2009 BCSC 594, refd to. [para. 39].

Leroux v. Canada Revenue Agency, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 865; 2010 D.T.C. 5123; 2010 BCSC 865, refd to. [para. 39].

Fantasy Construction Ltd. et al. (Bankrupts), Re (2007), 417 A.R. 255; 410 W.A.C. 255; 89 Alta. L.R.(4th) 93; 2007 ABCA 335, refd to. [para. 39].

Genge v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 270 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 182; 822 A.P.R. 182; 2007 NLCA 60, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 40].

Irving Shipbuilding Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 389 N.R. 72; 314 D.L.R.(4th) 340; 2009 FCA 116, leave to appeal refused [2009] 3 S.C.R. vii; 402 N.R. 390, refd to. [para. 40].

Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860; 262 N.R. 285; 2000 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Pringle v. Fraser, [1972] S.C.R. 821, refd to. [para. 42].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 42].

Peacock v. Bell (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73; 85 E.R. 84, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Morgentaler et al. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 53; 41 C.R.(3d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 44].

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

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 45].

Canada Labour Relations Board and Canada (Attorney General) v. L'Anglais (Paul) Inc. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147; 47 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 45].

Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food) et al. (2010), 410 N.R. 72; 2010 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 46].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 47].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 56].

Immeubles Port Louis ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 60].

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. 61].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 62].

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. 65].

Tock and Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181; 104 N.R. 241; 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 257 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 71].

Manchester v. Farnworth, [1930] A.C. 171 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 71].

Sutherland et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2002] 10 W.W.R. 1; 170 B.C.A.C. 233; 279 W.A.C. 233; 2002 BCCA 416, leave to appeal refused [2003] 1 S.C.R. xi; 319 N.R. 199; 197 B.C.A.C. 159; 323 W.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 72].

Lake v. St. John's (City) (2000), 192 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 84; 580 A.P.R. 84; 2000 NFCA 48, refd to. [para. 72].

Neuman v. Parkland (County) (2004), 355 A.R. 169; 30 Alta. L.R.(4th) 161; 2004 ABPC 58, refd to. [para. 72].

Danco et al. v. Thunder Bay (City) et al., [2000] O.T.C. 246; 13 M.P.L.R.(3d) 130 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72].

Landry et al. v. Moncton (City) (2008), 329 N.B.R.(2d) 212; 844 A.P.R. 212; 2008 NBCA 32, refd to. [para. 72].

Roy v. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee, [1992] 1 A.C. 624 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 101 [para. 17].

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 3, sect. 8, sect. 21 [para. 17].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2(1), sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 18.1, sect. 18.4 [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (2010 Looseleaf Update), paras. 2:4100 [para. 49]; 3:1100 [para. 56].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess., 28th Parliament (March 25, 1970), pp. 5470, 5471 [para. 50].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess., 34th Parliament (November 1, 1989), p. 5414 [paras. 22, 58].

Canada, House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, No. 1, 2nd Sess., 34th Parliament (November 23, 1989), pp. 14, 15 [para. 58].

Craig, Paul P., Administrative Law (6th Ed. 2008), p. 869 [para. 77].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., and Monahan, Patrick J., Liability of the Crown (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 139 [para. 70].

Horsman, Karen, and Morley, Gareth, Government Liability: Law and Practice (2007) (2010 Looseleaf Update), pp. 6-41 [para. 70]; 11-9 [para. 66].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law Update (2008-2009), Continuing Legal Education Conference, Administrative Law Conference (2009), p. 1.1.22 [paras. 66, 67].

Woolf, Harry, Jowell, Jeffrey L., and Le Sueur, Andrew P., de Smith's Judicial Review (6th Ed. 2007), pp. 924, 925 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Christopher M. Rupar, Alain Préfontaine and Bernard Letarte, for the appellant;

Peter F.C. Howard, Patrick J. Monahan, Eliot N. Kolers and Nicholas McHaffie, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 20 and 21, 2010, before Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered for the court, in both official languages, by Binnie, J., on December 23, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
334 practice notes
  • Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al., 2013 ABCA 148
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 28, 2013
    ...[2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 ; 342 N.R. 82 ; 2005 SCC 69 , refd to. [para. 21]. TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585 ; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1 ; 2010 SCC 62 , appld. [para. Lay v. Lay et al. [2012] A.R. Uned. 534 ; 2012 ABCA 303 , refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Horsema......
  • JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., (2013) 450 N.R. 91 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • October 24, 2013
    ...v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75 ; 2006 FCA 266 , refd to. [para. 50]. 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. 50]. Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2008), 329 F.T.R. 260 ; 200......
  • Canada (Gouverneur général en conseil) c. Première nation crie Mikisew,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • December 7, 2016
    ...650; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), 2015 FCA 4, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 737; ......
  • British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 2011
    ...Mix Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440; Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
292 cases
  • Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al., 2013 ABCA 148
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 28, 2013
    ...[2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 ; 342 N.R. 82 ; 2005 SCC 69 , refd to. [para. 21]. TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585 ; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1 ; 2010 SCC 62 , appld. [para. Lay v. Lay et al. [2012] A.R. Uned. 534 ; 2012 ABCA 303 , refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Horsema......
  • JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., (2013) 450 N.R. 91 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • October 24, 2013
    ...v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75 ; 2006 FCA 266 , refd to. [para. 50]. 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. 50]. Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2008), 329 F.T.R. 260 ; 200......
  • Canada (Gouverneur général en conseil) c. Première nation crie Mikisew,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • December 7, 2016
    ...650; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), 2015 FCA 4, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 737; ......
  • British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 2011
    ...Mix Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440; Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 14 ' 18, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 29, 2023
    ... 2011 SCC 56 , Keewatin v Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) (2003), 66 O.R. (3d) 370 , Canada (Attorney General) v TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, Apotex Inc. v Ontario (Minister of Health) (2000), 10 CPR (4th) 166 , Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v Ontario (Minister of Natur......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 7 ' December 11, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 21, 2020
    ...v Appliance Recycling Centers of America, 2014 ONCA 62, R v Domm, (1996) 31 OR (3d) 540 (CA), Canada (Attorney General) v Telezone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79, 203 SCC 63, 864503 Alberta Inc. v Genco Place Properties Ltd., 2019 ABCA 80 CIVIL DECISIONS McMurter v. McMu......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 16 ' November 20, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 24, 2020
    ...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 appeal refused, [199......
  • B.C. Court Of Appeal Confirms That Allegations Of Failure To Consult Or Treaty Right Infringement Should Not Be Advanced As A Collateral Attack On Government Instruments
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 11, 2011
    ...The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions including Canada (Attorney General) v. Telezone, 2010 SCC 62 drew a distinction between claims that government action was tortious but the government instruments were not being challenged and the situation in t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 books & journal articles
  • Twenty Years Later: What Are the Risks Faced By Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and How Have These Risks Changed?
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 10-1-2, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...Judicial Review on Administrative Law Grounds?” (2007) 57:9 UNBLJ 9; Canada v Grenier, 2005 FCA 348 [Grenier]; Canada (AG) v TeleZone Inc, 2010 SCC 62. See also Lorne Sossin, “Revisiting Class Actions against the Crown: Balancing Public and Private Legal Accountability for Government Action......
  • The Evolution and Devolution of Aggregate Damages as a Common Issue
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 10-1-2, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...Judicial Review on Administrative Law Grounds?” (2007) 57:9 UNBLJ 9; Canada v Grenier, 2005 FCA 348 [Grenier]; Canada (AG) v TeleZone Inc, 2010 SCC 62. See also Lorne Sossin, “Revisiting Class Actions against the Crown: Balancing Public and Private Legal Accountability for Government Action......
  • Editor-in-chief’s Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 10-1-2, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...Judicial Review on Administrative Law Grounds?” (2007) 57:9 UNBLJ 9; Canada v Grenier, 2005 FCA 348 [Grenier]; Canada (AG) v TeleZone Inc, 2010 SCC 62. See also Lorne Sossin, “Revisiting Class Actions against the Crown: Balancing Public and Private Legal Accountability for Government Action......
  • Judicial Review
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Immigration Law. Second Edition Part Four
    • June 19, 2015
    ...to the substance of a decision but may be awarded for losses flowing from the manner in which it was made. 201 Where there is an under-198 2010 SCC 62 at para 56. 199 See, for example, Samimifar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1301, [ Samimifar ]. Samimifar based......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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