PRACTICE |
Pleadings |
Motion to Strike |
St-Jacques v. Canada
T-2206-03, 04-T-20
2004 FC 1272, Martineau J.
16/9/04
16 pp.
Plaintiff brought action against defendant Her Majesty the Queen, claiming reimbursement of monies allegedly overpaid for employment insurance premiums for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001--Simplified action with proposed class action-- Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 221 authorizing Court to strike pleading when, taking facts as proven, pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action--Should be clear and obvious opposing party has no chance of success in trial-- Combination in same proceeding of action against Crown, application for judicial review challenging validity of decisions of federal board, commission, other tribunal improper--Two types of action subject to different legal criteria, in terms of substantive law, preparation of record and administration of evidence in Court--Most fair, economical solution possible in matter must be for these two actions to proceed separately--Further, application for judicial review should take precedence over action against Crown--Whether plaintiff could obtain compensation sought against Crown in initial statement of claim without first having Commission's decision setting premium rates quashed by application for judicial review, as defendant submitted--Plaintiff could have acted at proper time by filing application for judicial review challenging decision setting premium rates--Employment Insurance Act, s. 66 giving Commission great discretion-- Monies in question not, as plaintiff argued, monies "overpaid"--As long as not cancelled by court, said monies must be regarded as having been legally collected in accordance with annual premium rate set by Employment Insurance Commission--Only Commission, under Employment Insurance Act, s. 66 has power to set premium rate which in its opinion most appropriate--Theory of claims for overpayment, unjust enrichment relied on by plaintiff cannot apply in case at bar--Plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action against Crown under Federal Courts Act, s. 17-- Duty to reimburse alleged by plaintiff can only come into being if competent court sets aside disputed decisions of Commission--Accordingly, plaintiff's action against Crown prima facie premature, inadmissible--Defendant's motion to strike must accordingly be allowed, since plaintiff's action has no chance of success--On motion for extension of time to file application for judicial review, plaintiff did not observe 30-day deadline mentioned in Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(2)-- Motion for extension of time not meeting criteria found in case law--30-day deadline due to need to ensure certainty in federal government decisions--Waiting for outcome of constitutional litigation in Superior Court, existence, not preventing plaintiff from seeking judicial review of decisions in question within specified deadlines--Not special case in which Court should allow application for judicial review to be treated, proceeded with as action--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 221-- Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s. 66--Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 1 (am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14), 17 (am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 3; S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 25), 18.1(2) (enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 27).