Vona et al. v. Canada, (1996) 94 O.A.C. 390 (CA)

• Judge: Brooke, McKinlay and Osborne, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 18, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 94 O.A.C. 390 (CA)

Vona v. Can. (1996), 94 O.A.C. 390 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Romano Vona and Romano Wild Ranch Inc. (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (defendant/respondent)

(C20260)

Indexed As: Vona et al. v. Canada

Ontario Court of Appeal

Brooke, McKinlay and Osborne, JJ.A.

October 18, 1996.

Summary:

The plaintiffs operated a restaurant spe­cializing in game meats. They raised wild game animals. In January 1991, the plaintiffs received notice that their animals were placed in quarantine and were to be destroyed under the Health of Animals Act because of the presence of tuberculosis. The sale of meat and by-products was banned. The destruction of the animals was not completed until November, 1991. The plain­tiffs were not paid compensation until March 1992. The plaintiffs lost their restaurant and farms. The plaintiffs sued, alleging that the Crown was negligent in failing to make compensation in a timely fashion. The Crown applied to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 20 O.R.(3d) 589, allowed the application and struck out the statement of claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 1643

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences - Bars or ex­clusions - Receipt of compensation from consolidated revenue fund - The plaintiffs operated a game meats restaurant and raised wild game animals - Their animals were placed in quarantine and were to be destroyed because of the presence of tu­berculosis - The destruction of the ani­mals and pay­ment of compensation was delayed - The plaintiffs lost their restau­rant and farms - The plaintiffs sued, al­leg­ing that the Crown was negligent in failing to make compensation in a timely fashion - The Crown applied to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the action was barred as compensation was paid under the Con­soli­dated Revenue Fund (Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, s. 9) - See para­graphs 3 to 5.

Crown - Topic 1646

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences - Bars or ex­clusions - Statutory authority - The plain­tiffs oper­ated a game meats restaurant and raised wild game animals - Their animals were placed in quarantine and were to be destroyed under the Health of Animals Act because of the presence of tuberculosis - The destruction of the animals and pay­ment of compensation was delayed - The plaintiffs lost their restaurant and farms - The plaintiffs sued, alleging that the Crown was negligent in failing to make compensation in a timely fashion - The Crown applied to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 50 of the Health of Animals Act barred the plaintiffs' action - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Practice - Topic 2233.1

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Where compensa­tion has been paid out of consolidated revenue fund - [See Crown - Topic 1643 ].

Cases Noticed:

Langille et al. v. Canada, [1992] 2 F.C. 208; 140 N.R. 304 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41; 83 D.T.C. 5041; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 5].

Vandrwees Poultry Farm v. Canada (Min­ister of Agriculture) (1993), 65 F.T.R. 63 (Health of Animals Act Assessor), refd to. [para. 9].

Hunt (David) Farms v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1994] 2 F.C. 625; 167 N.R. 116 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (Ont.) - see Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.).

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 9 [para. 1].

Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21, sect. 50 [para. 7]; sect. 51 [para. 12].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 21.01(1)(b) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Vusumzi M.N. Msi, for the appellants;

Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 23, 1996, by Brooke, McKinlay and Osborne, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The following judgment was endorsed on the appeal record and released on October 18, 1996.