FISHERIES |
Newell v. Canada
T-1299-01
2002 FCT 373, MacKay J.
4/4/02
11 pp.
Motion to strike statement of claim, amended statement of claim on ground disclosing no reasonable cause of action-- Plaintiff held licence to fish crab in 1999, 2000 seasons--In February 2000 informed in writing exceeded 1999 quota-- Letter requesting plaintiff to report any discrepancies; stating otherwise crab fishery guidelines would apply and 2000 crab allocation would be reduced--Plaintiff not reporting any discrepancies; 2000 snow crab licence reduced by 5,268 pounds--By statement of claim, commenced action based on ground reduction in quota not authorized by Fisheries Act, and punitive in nature--Also pleaded penalties imposed by administrative sanctions denied defences available to plaintiff if prosecuted under Act for contravention of Act or regulations, including violation of licence conditions--By amended statement of claim seeking damages in amount of value of lost catch as result of defendant's "tortious interference with his economic interests"--Also sought damages for class of other fish harvesters subject to DFO's Administrative Sanctions Program in Newfoundland--Crown submitting plaintiff cannot seek civil remedy because no right to fishing licence; no action can be commenced until Court, in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction, determined impugned decision invalid, unlawful, should be quashed, set aside or otherwise improper--Motion allowed--Description of nature, purpose of administrative reductions of quotas not otherwise supported by facts alleged in statement of claim--Guidelines referred to in letter not set out in statement of claim-- Description of reductions as penal not matter of fact, but issue of law to be determined on evidence, arguments--Matthews v. Canada (Attorney General), [1997] 1 F.C. 206 (T.D.); affd (1999), 242 N.R. 181 (F.C.A.) wherein notice of reduction of quotas specifically set out purpose of reduction as penalty, distinguished--As matter of law, plaintiff has no right to fishing licence, breach of which, by reduction in quota, giving rise to claim for compensation--Since fishing licence conveying privilege, not right, plaintiff's claim of tortious interference with economic right to fish not disclosing reasonable cause of action--By Federal Court Act, s. 18(1), (3) relief against invalid decision of any federal board, commission or tribunal may be obtained only on application for judicial review pursuant to s. 18.1--Although general rule that when decision set aside on appeal or review, no additional liability in damages, exceptions exist eg. failure to act in good faith--While in particular circumstances may be no need to first seek judicial review before initiating claim for damages against federal public authority for loss claimed to arise from unlawful decision, unnecessary to determine whether this was such a case--No allegation of bad faith in granting licence for 2000 season--Allegation of tortious interference not allegation of bad faith--Since plaintiff had no right to licence or to particular quota, reduction of quota assigned not interfering with any rights established at law--No argument addressed to issue of including as possible claimants, class of individuals described in amended statement of claim--Rules not, at this stage, providing for such claim--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4).