Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général), (2004) 327 N.R. 160 (FCA)

• Judge: Desjardins, Noël and Nadon, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 327 N.R. 160 (FCA);2004 FCA 172

Tremblay v. Can. (P.g.) (2004), 327 N.R. 160 (FCA)

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] N.R. TBEd. MY.027

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. André Tremblay (respondent)

(A-490-03; 2004 FCA 172; 2004 CAF 172)

Indexed As: Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général)

Federal Court of Appeal

Desjardins, Noël and Nadon, JJ.A.

April 30, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff was forced to retire from the Canadian Forces pursuant to the mandatory retirement age provisions of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. The plaintiff sued the federal Crown. The Crown moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action on the ground that the statement of claim dis­closed no reasonable cause of action.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Can­ada, Trial Division, in a decision report­ed at 230 F.T.R. 161, dismissed the motion. The Crown appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 240 F.T.R. 308 dismissed the appeal. The Crown ap­pealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

Courts - Topic 4071.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - General - The plaintiff was forced to retire from the Canadian Forces pursuant to the mandatory retirement age pro­visions of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces - The plain­tiff sued the federal Crown - He sought, inter alia, a declaration that the provisions were contrary to the Charter and, therefore, of no force and effect - He also sought reinstatement and damages - The Crown argued that these remedies should be sought by judicial review, not an action - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's retirement involved a decision made by a "federal board, com­mis­sion or other tribunal" within the mean­ing of sections 18 and 2 of the Federal Courts Act - He could only challenge the validity of his retirement and seek rein­statement by way of judicial review - The plaintiff could only claim damages through an action and only after the decision of the federal board, commission or other tribunal had been set aside on judicial review - See paragraphs 1 to 30.

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 ].

Cases Noticed:

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 6].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 6].

Merck Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2004), 315 N.R. 175; 2003 FCA 488, refd to. [para. 7].

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 7].

Three Rivers Boatman Ltd. v. Canada Labour Relations Board, [1969] S.C.R. 607, refd to. [para. 10].

Minister of National Revenue v. Creative Shoes Ltd., [1972] F.C. 993 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sweet et al. v. Canada (1999), 249 N.R. 17 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 20].

Zarzour v. Canada (2000), 268 N.R. 235 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 23].

De-Nobile v. Canada (Procureur général), [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 698 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Ac­tions in Canada, c. 3-1, generally [para. 9].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1996), paras. 721, 722 [para. 28].

Sgayias, David, Kinnear, Meg, Rennie, Donald J., and Saunders, Brian J., Fed­eral Court Practice (2004), pp. 27, 28 [para. 29].

Counsel:

Chantal Sauriol, for the appellant;

Alain Tremblay, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Ouellet, Nadon & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Que­bec, on April 19, 2004, by Desjardins, Noël and Nadon, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 30, 2004, by Desjardins, J.A.