Puddister Trading Co. v. Canada
T-168-92
Simpson J.
28/5/97
19 pp.
Fisheries-Plaintiffs Puddister Trading Co. and Arthur Puddister seek compensation from Government of Canada (The Queen and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) for closure of Atlantic large vessel offshore seal fishery in December 1987-Government decided had to sacrifice offshore seal hunt to remove danger (of boycott) to far more important fishing and inshore sealing industries-9000 licences involved in inshore seal hunt not affected by closure-Minister requested independent study on issue of compensation-Study's terms of reference to determine need (losses), and, if need shown and if Minister or officials gave fresh approval, compensation-Plaintiffs seek compensation on basis defendants, by their conduct, offered compensation and offer was accepted-Contractual basis only matter asked to be considered-Issue whether defendants' conduct entitled plaintiffs to reasonably believe if study showed compensation warranted, would be calculated as part of study and reasonable sum would be paid to licensees who had suffered losses-Plaintiff Puddister honestly believed by agreeing to fund independent study, federal government had made commitment to pay reasonable compensation-Puddister's belief not reasonable-Never public announcement of compensation program, and Puddister never received commitment to pay compensation-Puddister knew no liability to pay compensation and that Department officials opposed compensation on basis EEC ban, not closure, caused demise of offshore seal hunt-However, defendants did make commitment to broad independent study to consider whether compensation warranted and, if so, amounts lost by individual licence holders-Minister erred when trusted implementation of study to department officials without supervision by personal staff when knew officials opposed compensation-Officials did not ultimately arrange broad independent study Minister had foreseen when study received Cabinet approval as part of sealing policy-Instead, bureaucrats turned study into narrow accounting exercise, compromised its independence and qualified it by introducing requirement for ministerial or other undefined "official" approval prior to phase two (compensation)-Entirely reasonable for Puddister to believe government had made binding commitment to complete full study of compensation issue if phase one (need) concluded compensation warranted-This was commitment and, by failure to conclude study, defendants breached commitment and first defendant (Crown) responsible for damages for breach-Judgment to issue against first defendant awarding Puddister Trading sum of $21,000 for amount paid to market research firm to prepare licence holders' case for compensation and $3,600 for amount paid for accounting work to answer Department's questionnaire-Arthur Puddister's action against both defendants and Puddister Trading's action against second defendant dismissed without costs.