Wolff (Rudolph) & Co. Ltd. and Noranda Inc. v. Canada, (1990) 106 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Date: 29 March 1990
• Citation: (1990), 106 N.R. 1 (SCC),69 DLR (4th) 392,43 Admin LR 1,39 OAC 1,[1990] 1 SCR 695,1990 CanLII 139 (SCC),106 NR 1,41 CPC (2d) 1,[1990] SCJ No 28 (QL),20 ACWS (3d) 204,46 CRR 263
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)

Wolff & Co. v. Can. (1990), 106 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]

.........................

Rudolph Wolff & Co. Ltd. and Noranda Inc. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (respondent) and Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec and Attorney General for Alberta (intervenors)

(20842)

Indexed As: Wolff (Rudolph) & Co. Ltd. and Noranda Inc. v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

March 29, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff company brought an action for damages in the Ontario Supreme Court against the federal Crown for alleged tortious conduct, breach of contractual obligation and breach of fiduciary duty in respect of its conduct as a member of the International Tin Council. The Crown applied to dismiss the action on the ground that the Federal Court of Canada had exclusive jurisdiction under ss. 17(1) and 17(2) of the Federal Court Act and s. 7(1) of the Crown Liability Act. The plaintiff claimed that the sections violated s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The court held that s. 15(1) did not apply to statutes which govern the relationship between the Crown and the subject in civil and criminal proceedings on the ground that the Crown was not an individual who could be compared with the subject for the purposes of s. 15. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that the challenged sections did not violate s. 15(1). The court stated that, inter alia, "the Crown is simply not an individual with whom a comparison can be made to determine whether a s. 15(1) violation has occurred".

Civil Rights - Topic 5502

Equality and protection of the law - Equality rights - Denial of - Sections 17(1) and 17(2) of the Federal Court Act and s. 7(1) of the Crown Liability Act gave the Federal Court of Canada exclusive jurisdiction over certain actions against the federal Crown - The sections prevented an individual plaintiff from suing the federal Crown in the Ontario Supreme Court - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the sections did not violate the plaintiff's equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The court stated that where the Crown acted in its governmental capacity (and was sued on that basis) the Crown was "simply not an individual with whom a comparison can be made to determine whether a s. 15(1) violation has occurred".

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.2

Equality and protection of the law - Where legislation favours the Crown - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5502].

Courts - Topic 4028

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Claims for relief against Crown - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5502].

Courts - Topic 5685

Provincial courts - Jurisdiction or powers - Actions against federal Crown - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5502].

Words and Phrases

Individual - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed whether the federal Crown was an "individual" for the purposes of s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stoddart (1987), 20 O.A.C. 365; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), apprvd. [para. 6].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, appld. [para. 12].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 18].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; 96 N.R. 227; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 235 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 18].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15(1) [para. 11].

Crown Liability Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-38, sect. 7(1) [para. 5].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 17(1), sect. 17(2) [para. 5].

Petition of Right Act (1860), 23 & 24 Vict., c. 34 [para. 9].

Petition of Right Act (1875), 38 Vict., c. 12 [para. 9].

Petition of Right Act (1876), 39 Vict., c. 27 [para. 9].

Counsel:

R.G. Slaght, Q.C., for the appellants;

T.B. Smith, Q.C., A.R. Pringle and Joseph de Pencier, for the respondent;

Robert E. Charney, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean Bouchard and Madeleine Aubé, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Richard Taylor, for the Attorney General for Alberta.

This appeal was heard on January 24, 1990, before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 29, 1990, Cory, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.