PRACTICE |
Judgments and Orders |
Summary Judgment |
Haché v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
T-2263-01
2002 FCT 703, Tremblay-Lamer J.
24/6/02
17 pp.
Plaintiffs, snow crab fishers, commenced action for damages of $9.1 million--Partnering scheme allowing snow crab fishers to subsidize snow crab plant workers and other snow crab fishers so they could acquire sufficient number of weeks of employment to qualify for employment insurance benefits--Scheme working as follows: (1) 20% of fisher's quota withheld and transferred to Partenariat du Crabe des Neiges, (2) fisher would pay sum of money based on quota to Partenariat, (3) upon payment Partenariat notifying Department, (4) Department retransferring money to Fonds de Solidarité de l'Industrie du Crabes des Neiges Inc. for creation of make-work projects for laid-off workers, (5) Department releasing withheld 20% of quota to fisher--Scheme conditional on passage of legislation--Legislation dying on order paper--Fishers continuing to make payments to Partenariat--In Aucoin v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (2001), 208 F.T.R. 178 (F.C.T.D.), Rouleau J. finding decision of Minister to transfer 20% of quota to Partenariat null and void and ultra vires powers under Fisheries Act--Plaintiffs therefore arguing entitled to return of all monies paid into Fund--Plaintiffs bringing motion for summary judgment for $9.1 million paid to Partenariat alleging no serious issue to be tried between parties--Motion denied--General principles governing motions for summary judgment set out in Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd., [1996] 2 F.C. 853 (T.D.)--Onus on plaintiffs to establish that all relevant issues can be properly decided on evidence before court and that there are no issues that can only be fairly resolved after trial: F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd. v. S.B. Concrete Technology, Inc. (1999), 1 C.P.R. (4th) 88 (F.C.T.D.)--Genuine issues relating to restitution and misfeasance in public office cannot be decided by summary judgment--Air Canada v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581 distinguished--Government received none of amounts paid by plaintiffs--General principle regarding restitution stated in Air Canada v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1161--Not possible to determine whether plaintiffs suffered loss in summary judgment proceedings--Plaintiffs received something in exchange for contribution--Only full trial can yield evidence necessary to make determination--Plaintiffs not presenting proof of damages--Pursuant to Radil Bros. Fishing Co. v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region) (2000), 197 F.T.R. 169 (F.C.T.D.) plaintiff must establish three elements to prove misfeasance in public office: (a) Minister acting with malice or knowledge had not power to do what doing; (b) Minister's actions deliberately calculated to injure plaintiffs; and (c) damage resulted therefrom--Plaintiffs not establishing (b) and (c)--Defendant's defence deserves consideration by trier of fact.