Canada: Untangling The Procedural Web In Litigation Against The Crown

Last Updated: September 10 2008
Article by John A. Terry and Raegan Kennedy

"Suing the Crown," presentation to the Canadian Institute, Toronto, June 24, 2008

At common law, the Crown could not be sued because of the feudal principle that the Crown could not be sued in its own court.1 Complaints could, however, be brought against the Crown using a petition of right but this procedure was cumbersome and time-consuming.2 The use of a petition of right in this context was not abolished by the federal and provincial governments in Canada until the middle of the 20th century. The general rule in modern Canadian Crown proceeding statutes is that the Crown is sued by the same procedure that is used against other parties.3 However, some special procedural rules still exist that are necessary to consider when bringing a proceeding against the Crown. In addition to these special procedural rules, the Crown is still subject to residual common law immunities. This paper will examine some of the special procedural rules and residual immunities that are applicable in bringing a proceeding against the Crown. The paper will specifically focus on the rules that are applicable when bringing proceedings against the Crown in right of the Province of Ontario (Provincial Crown) in the Courts of Ontario and proceedings against the Crown in right of Canada (Federal Crown) in the Courts of Ontario and the Federal Courts.

The first part of the paper sets out the procedural rules that must be followed in commencing a proceeding against the Crown. The second part of the paper outlines some of the pretrial procedures that must be followed in bringing a proceeding against the Crown, including special notice and service requirements. The third part of the paper summarizes some of the restrictions on the relief that may be sought against the Crown. The final part of the paper discusses whether or not administrative proceedings must be exhausted before bringing an application for judicial review and whether or not an application for judicial review must be brought before commencing an action against the Crown relating to the impugned decision.

Commencing a Proceeding Against the Crown

Sources of procedural rules

Provincial Crown

Litigation commenced against the Provincial Crown is generally governed by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act4 (PACA). PACA sets out the special rules that are applicable in bringing proceedings against the Provincial Crown, such as notice, service and discovery provisions. PACA is not the only statute that governs proceedings against the Provincial Crown. For example, PACA expressly provides that it does not affect claims against the Provincial Crown under the Certification of Titles Act, the Corporations Tax Act, the Expropriations Act, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, the Income Tax Act, the Land Titles Act, the Mining Tax Act, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, the Retail Sales Tax Act, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 and The Succession Duty Act.5

Federal Crown

Litigation commenced against the Federal Crown is generally governed by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act 6 and its regulations7 CLPA sets out the special rules that are applicable in bringing a proceeding against the Federal Crown.

General

In addition to these Crown proceeding statutes, the rules of practice and procedure of the court in which the proceeding occurs will also apply.8 These rules may include the Federal Courts Act,9 Federal Courts Rules,10 Courts of Justice Act,11 Rules of Civil Procedure12 and the applicable evidence and interpretation acts.

In which court does the proceeding belong?

Provincial Crown

Proceedings against the Provincial Crown can be brought in any of the courts of Ontario. It is necessary to examine the rules and regulations of the specific court before commencing a proceeding against the Crown before that court. For example, an action against the Provincial Crown for $1 million cannot be brought in the Small Claims Court.13 The Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over matters relating to the Provincial Crown.14

Federal Crown

Prior to 1992, the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings against the Federal Crown. As a result of amendments to CLPA and the Federal Courts Act in 1992, the provincial superior courts now share jurisdiction with the Federal Courts.15 Accordingly, a plaintiff may choose to bring a proceeding against the Federal Crown in the Federal Court or in a provincial court unless a statute provides otherwise. For example, proceedings against the Federal Crown under the Expropriation Act must be brought in the Federal Court.16 A claimant who has brought a claim in respect of a cause of action against the Federal Crown in the Federal Court may not bring a claim in respect of the same cause of action against the Federal Crown in the provincial court.17

The Federal Court has a limited ability to hear multiple-party proceedings involving the Federal Crown. The Federal Court only has jurisdiction to hear claims involving multiple parties where it would have jurisdiction to hear each of the claims on its own.18 As the Federal Court is a statutory court, it only has jurisdiction over matters that it has been statutorily granted jurisdiction.19 The Federal Court has jurisdiction over maritime, aeronautic and intellectual property matters.20 As a result, the Federal Court can only hear multiple-party proceedings relating to these matters.

Prior to the 1992 amendments, a plaintiff who wished to bring a proceeding against a private party in addition to the Federal Crown usually had to bring a claim in the provincial superior courts against the non-Crown party and a claim in the Federal Court against the Federal Crown. However, as a result of the 1992 amendments, the plaintiff may now commence a single proceeding in the provincial court.21

General

When a proceeding is brought in the wrong court, the proceeding will be dismissed because the court will lack the jurisdiction needed to hear it. For example, a court will dismiss a proceeding brought against the Provincial Crown that is brought in the Federal Court.22 The proceeding may be recommenced in the correct court unless the limitation period has run out.

If a proceeding is brought correctly before a Court of Ontario but to the wrong subdivision of the court, section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act provides that the proceeding may be transferred or adjourned to the proper court. This provision protects a claimant from missing a limitation period as a result of recommencing the proceeding in the proper court.

It is necessary to examine the relevant rules of each court as well as the modern Crown proceeding statutes in order to determine the appropriate court before which the proceeding should be brought to avoid any unnecessary delays and to prevent missing a limitation period.

Which party should be named?

Provincial Crown

In general, the Provincial Crown must be named as "Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario" or "Sa Majesté du chef de l'Ontario" when it is identified as a defendant in a claim.23 When a claim is brought under a specific statute and the statute specifies how the Provincial Crown should be named in the claim, the Provincial Crown should be identified according to that statute. For example, when a claim is brought against the Provincial Crown under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, the Provincial Crown should be identified as "Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Ontario."24 A special naming rule applies where a declaration that provincial legislation is invalid is sought; the proper respondent is the "Attorney General of Ontario."25 There is no rule that stipulates how the Provincial Crown should be named as a plaintiff in a proceeding.

A ministry cannot be named as a party to the proceeding because it is not a person and therefore does not have the capacity to be a party to the proceeding.26 A minister may be named as a defendant in a proceeding if the claim alleges that the minister acted incorrectly in his or her personal capacity.27 Unless a tribunal or board is incorporated or statutorily designated as a person, it cannot be a named party of the litigation.

Section 2(2)(b) of PACA provides that the Provincial Crown is not liable for acts or omissions of Crown corporations and Crown agencies. Accordingly, the Provincial Crown should not be identified as a party in proceedings against these actors.

The Provincial Crown should not be named as a defendant in an action against a servant of the Provincial Crown unless the servant has been appointed by or is employed by the Provincial Crown.28 Where the Provincial Crown is named as a defendant in an action involving a breach of duties or a tort committed by any of its servants or agents, the servant or agent must also be named for this proceeding to be valid.29

Federal Crown

CLPA provides that the Federal Crown should be identified as the "Attorney General of Canada" in proceedings against the Crown. Accordingly, in proceedings against the Federal Crown brought in the provincial courts, the Federal Crown should be identified as the "Attorney General of Canada."30 While CLPA is not limited to provincial courts, the specific naming provisions in the Federal Courts Act should be used when a proceeding is brought against the Federal Crown, and the Federal Crown should be identified as "Her Majesty the Queen."31

Government departments,32 ministries,33 the prime minister34 and ministers35 should not be identified as parties in proceedings against the Federal Crown unless a minister is being sued as an individual for acting incorrectly in his or her personal capacity.36

When and to whom must the plaintiff give notice?

Before bringing a proceeding against the Crown, a claimant must give written notice of the claim to the Crown.37 The notice must contain written particulars of the claim and must communicate that the complaint could reasonably result in litigation.38 The purposes of this requirement are to (i) provide the Crown with the opportunity to investigate the claim while the circumstances are still fresh; (ii) encourage settlement of the claim before the expense of litigation has been incurred; and (iii) provide the government with information about potential financial liabilities associated with litigation and potential damages.39

In general, failure to give notice will be fatal to a proceeding40 and will result in the invalidation of a decision made in its absence.41 It is usually possible to remedy this failure by serving proper notice and commencing a new proceeding. However, this is not possible if the limitation period has expired.

Provincial Crown

In general, no action for a claim can be commenced against the Provincial Crown unless the claimant has served notice on the Provincial Crown at least sixty days in advance of the claim.42 PACA provides that where a notice of claim is served on the Crown before the expiration date of the limitation period but the 60-day period ends after the limitation period, the claimant is granted a 7-day extension to the limitation period and can validly bring a claim within this time.43

There are other notice periods that must be complied with that are specific to certain claims brought against the Provincial Crown. For example, where a claim against the Provincial Crown involves an allegation regarding the breach of duties relating to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property, the plaintiff has 10 days after the claim arises to give notice to the Provincial Crown.44 For claims arising under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, the plaintiff must give the Crown 10 days notice after the happening of the injury.45 Notice must be given to the Provincial Crown at least 15 days before the day on which a constitutional question will be argued.46

Notice may be sent to the Provincial Crown's office – Crown Law Office (Civil Law), Ministry of the Attorney General, 720 Bay Street, 8th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K1.

Federal Crown

There are no provisions in CLPA or the Federal Courts Act that require notice to be given in advance of bringing a general claim against the Federal Crown. However, notice must be given to the Federal Crown in advance of bringing certain claims. For example, notice of an intention to challenge the constitutional validity, applicability or operability of legislation must be served on the Attorney General at least 15 days before the day on which the constitutional question is to be argued.47 Notice of "fourteen clear days"48 must be given with respect to a default judgment against the Federal Crown. Notice may also be served on the Attorney General of Canada where a question of general importance is raised in any proceeding.49

Notice may be sent to the Attorney General's office in Ottawa or the appropriate regional office of the Department of Justice.

Effecting proper service of the claim

Provincial Crown

Claims that are brought before the Courts of Ontario must be served personally pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.50 Section 10 of PACA provides that documents that have to be served personally on the Provincial Crown must be served by leaving a copy of the document with a solicitor in the Crown Law Office (Civil Liability) of the Ministry of the Attorney General. This office will only accept service of documents for the Provincial Crown and will not admit service for private citizens or ministers.

Federal Crown

As noted above, claims being brought before the Courts of Ontario must be served personally under the Rules of Civil Procedure. CLPA provides that where a proceeding is brought against the Federal Crown in the Courts of Ontario, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, the director of the appropriate regional Department of Justice, or the chief executive office of the agency in whose name the proceedings are taken may be served with these claims.51

Claims being brought against the Federal Crown in the Federal Court must also be personally served.52 The Registry of the Federal Court will admit service on behalf of the Federal Crown.53

Pretrial Procedures

Must the Crown produce civil servants for discovery?

Provincial Crown

At common law, the Crown was immune from discovery.54 The general rule regarding discovery under PACA is that, when the Provincial Crown is named as a defendant in a proceeding, the rules of court as to the discovery, inspection of documents and examination apply in the same manner as if the Provincial Crown were a corporation.55 There are three exceptions to this general rule, one being that the Provincial Crown retains the right to select the official who will be examined for discovery.56 The Deputy Attorney General of Ontario has the exclusive right to select this representative.57 The courts do not have the power to interfere with the Crown's discretion in choosing a representative.58 However, where the Crown fails to adequately provide disclosure in respect of a claim and where the designee of the Crown is not reasonably well-informed as to the matters in issue, the court may substitute a representative of its choosing.59

PACA has not removed the Provincial Crown's prerogative to refuse to produce a representative for discovery where the Crown is a plaintiff. If the Crown offers to produce a representative for discovery, the Crown has the right to choose who that representative will be.60

Federal Crown

There are no specific statutory provisions in CLPA that set out the rules that govern discovery in Federal Crown proceedings. CLPA provides that the rules of practice and procedure in the court in which the proceeding are to take place will apply to the proceedings.61

The Federal Crown is subject to discovery when it is a party to the proceedings. These rules differ from the rules governing the Provincial Crown; the Provincial Crown is subject to discovery only as a defendant.62

Section 7 of CLPA Regulations specifically provides that where a proceeding is brought in a provincial court and the provincial rules of practice and procedure provide that an officer of a corporation may be examined for discovery, the Deputy Attorney General may designate a representative of the Crown to fulfill the same function. This provision also states that this choice is subject to review by the court. Generally, the court will intervene with the Federal Crown's choice of representative only where the examiner can show that the designee is unsuitable.63 The Alberta Court of Appeal has held that this rule requires the Crown to put forth "designated officers or servants of the Crown" for the purposes of examination but this rule does not remove the Crown's prerogative right to refuse to designate the minister as an examinee.64

The Attorney General of Canada appoints the representative to be questioned at examination in proceedings against the Federal Crown in the Federal Court.65 Similar to proceedings against the Federal Crown in provincial courts, the Federal Court may substitute the examinee with another person. However, the court will not intervene with the selection unless it is shown that representative is not informed of the essential facts at issue.66 Only in special circumstances, will the courts require a minister to be examined, and the party seeking to examine the minister must establish that the minister is the person best informed to answer the questions relating to the matters at issue.67

Quashing summonses and subpoenas against public officials

The federal and provincial Crown proceeding statutes do not contain special rules that govern how to summon or subpoena public officials as witnesses nor do they provide the procedure to quash such summons or subpoenas. The Crown has some residual prerogative rights that may limit the ability for certain public officials to be called as witnesses at a discovery or trial. For example, a member of parliament can refuse to attend court as a witness during a parliamentary session and during the 40 days preceding and following a parliamentary session.68

As noted above, the general rule established by the modern Crown proceeding statutes is that the procedure used in proceedings against the Crown should be similar to the procedure used against private parties. Therefore, in determining whether to quash a summons or subpoena against a public official, the court will generally look at whether the proposed witness has relevant and significant evidence and whether the evidence of the witness is privileged.69 It is important to note that the Crown has privileges beyond the litigation and solicitor–client privileges that are available to all private parties. Certain Crown evidence that is otherwise relevant and admissible may be subject to "public interest immunity" if its admission would harm the public interest. Accordingly, a witness would not be required to disclose this information.70 For example, information about cabinet records that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council,71 and information obtained in confidence from a foreign government, international organization, provincial, municipal or regional government is subject to "public interest immunity."72

Before subpoenaing or summoning a public official, it is necessary to review the statute that governs the actions of the public official as such statutes may limit the compellability of the public official. For example, the Police Services Act provides that no member of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services is required to give testimony in any civil suit or proceeding with regard to information obtained in the course of his or her duties.73 The Railways Safety Act provides that no railway safety inspector is required to give testimony in a civil suit with regard to information obtained by the inspector in the discharge of his or her duties.74

Interveners

Neither the provincial nor the federal Crown proceeding statutes outline the procedures that must be used in lining up or arguing for or against the standing of Crown interveners or interveners in Crown proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to defer to the rules of the court where the proceeding will be brought.

When a proceeding is brought against the Provincial Crown or the Federal Crown in the Courts of Ontario, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits the court to grant leave to two distinct forms of intervention. Rule 13.01 permits a person, including an organization, who is not a party to the litigation to be added as a party if the person (i) has an interest in the subject matter; (ii) may be adversely affected by the judgment; or (iii) has a question of law or fact common with a party to the proceeding. In deciding whether the person should be added as a party, the courts will consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of rights of the parties to the proceeding.75 The intervener must be able to make a useful, unique contribution to specific issues raised.76 As a party, the intervener has the same rights as the other parties in the litigation and is involved throughout the entire fact-finding process.

Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows a person to intervene without becoming a party to the proceeding by becoming a friend of the court. As a friend of the court, the intervener's role is limited to rendering assistance to the court by way of argument. Friends of the court are not permitted to submit evidence.

Where a proceeding is brought against the Federal Crown in the Federal Court and intervention is sought, Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules applies. The central issue in determining whether a person will be granted intervener status is whether the proposed intervention will assist the court in determining factual or legal issues related to the proceeding; an interest in the development of the jurisprudence is not sufficient.77 The court will not add an intervener to the litigation if the intervener will only repeat in its own words the arguments that a party is already making.78

How does access to information and privacy legislation affect litigation against the Crown?

Historically, access to government information has been limited. Federal and provincial statutes now exist to permit and moderate access to government information in order to increase government accountability.79 These statutes include the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act80 and the federal Access to Information Act.81 In general, these statutes provide a citizen with the right to access information under government control, but set out exemptions to those rights.82 Potential plaintiffs may requests documents under government control pursuant to these statutes prior to commencing litigation and, to some extent, after the litigation has begun. The government may deny access to documents if they are subject to solicitor–client privilege or if they were created or prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation.83 Therefore, it may be advantageous for a potential litigant to request information in advance of bringing a proceeding against the Crown.84

The Crown still retains the ability to limit access to certain types of information. As discussed above, government information that is subject to "public interest immunity" will not be disclosed to the public and therefore will not be available to persons involved in litigation against the Crown.

Other statutes may also limit the information that is available to the public. For example, the Mental Health Act85 provides that mental health records cannot be disclosed without a court order and the Youth Criminal Justice Act86 provides that criminal records of young offenders cannot be disclosed.

Relief Against the Crown

When are injunctions against the Crown available?

At common law, injunctions were not available against the Crown because of the inability of the Crown's court to issue an order against the Crown and to punish the Crown for contempt of court.87 PACA and CLPA both expressly provide that an injunction cannot be brought against the Crown.88 However, both statutes provide that the courts "in lieu thereof may make an order declaratory of the rights of the parties."89 Generally, a declaration may be just as effective as an injunction since the Crown will not likely disobey a court order.90

There is one exception to the general rule that an injunction is not available against the Crown. Where the Crown breaches a duty imposed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or violates a constitutional division of power, an injunction is available as relief because the government cannot enact legislation to protect itself from the remedies imposed on it for acting unconstitutionally.91 In order to receive relief by way of an injunction, the moving party must show that (i) irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; (ii) there is a serious issue to be tried; and (iii) the balance of convenience favours the injunction.92 However, it should be noted that the court will only grant injunctions against the government on the grounds of alleged unconstitutionality in clear cases.93

PACA and CLPA provide that injunctions are not generally available against servants of the Crown.94 Injunctions against these government actors are available only where they are acting beyond their statutory authority95 or where these actors are sued in their personal capacity.96 The Crown's immunity from injunction does not apply to Crown agents and corporations.97

Can the plaintiff execute on a judgment?

The Crown is immune from execution on a judgment at common law for the same reasons that it is immune from injunctions.98 Furthermore, it has been suggested that this immunity is justified because seizing Crown property could cause interruptions to the public service.99 This immunity is now encapsulated in provisions in CLPA and PACA.100

Although execution is not available against the Crown, the Minister of Finance is statutorily obligated to pay money awarded in a judgment against the Crown out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.101 This obligation extends to sums of money agreed to in out-of-court settlements by the Provincial Crown.102 An out-of-court settlement agreed to by the Federal Crown is not statutorily protected.103

Administrative Remedies, Judicial Review and Action for Damages

Does the plaintiff need to exhaust administrative remedies before applying for judicial review?

The Judicial Review and Procedure Act104 and the Rules of Civil Procedure set out the procedural rules that govern applications for judicial review brought before the Courts of Ontario. The Judicial Review and Procedure Act provides that an application for judicial review must be made to the Divisional Court unless the matter is of an urgent nature, in which case leave may be granted to apply to the superior court.105

Section 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act grants to the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear judicial reviews of decisions of federal boards, commissions and other federal tribunals.106 The Federal Courts Rules provide that an application for judicial review can be made by the Attorney General of Canada or "by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought."107 This phrase has been interpreted broadly to authorize the grant of standing to a party that has a public interest in the decision but was not involved in the prior proceedings.108 Generally, judicial review applications will be brought before the Federal Court. Where there is statutory authority, an application may be brought to the Federal Court of Appeal.109

The Federal Courts Rules, the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure do not impose requirements that must be met by a party before an application can be brought for judicial review. However, it is a general rule in both the Federal Court and the courts of Ontario that it is necessary to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to bringing an application for judicial review because administrative remedies tend to involve less delay and expense.110 These administrative remedies may include review or reconsideration by the decision maker, an appeal of the decision to another tribunal and/or a petition to another body.111

A party may bring an application for judicial review before exhausting administrative remedies in a limited number of circumstances. In exercising their discretion to hear judicial reviews at this point in the process, the courts will consider whether the available administrative remedy is adequate.112 In making this decision, the courts will consider, among other factors, whether an individual applicant's rights have been hindered; whether it is economical to proceed with judicial resources; the integrity of the administrative remedy; and delays associated with the administrative remedy.113 For example, even where there has been a breach of the duty of fairness in a proceeding resulting in an administrative decision, the court will not hear the review if there is a right of appeal to an administrative tribunal.114 However, where there has been an allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias by a decision maker and the only administrative remedy is the rehearing by that same decision-making body, the court may make an exception.115

Does the plaintiff need to bring an application for judicial review before commencing an action relating to the impugned decision?

The Federal Court of Appeal has held that an application for judicial review must precede an action relating to an impugned decision in the Federal Courts.116 The Federal Court of Appeal held that permitting an action relating to an impugned decision before the decision has been judicially reviewed would (i) deny the clear intention of Parliament that certain remedies may be exercised only by way of an application for judicial review; (ii) infringe the principle of finality of administrative decisions; (iii) decrease the legal security of these decisions; and (iv) permit prothonotaries to essentially hear applications for judicial review contrary to legislative intention.117

It is uncertain whether a plaintiff must bring an application for judicial review before commencing an action relating to the impugned decision before the courts of Ontario. The 1983 Court of Appeal decision Seaway Trust Co. v. Ontario is the leading decision in this area of law in Ontario. The case supports the view that that an application for judicial review may not be necessary before an action can be brought.118 In that case, the Court of Appeal held that judicial review is not necessary because of the need to avoid multiple proceedings and the importance of a full trial to examine the important factual issues in light of all the evidence. Recent case law suggests that the Federal Court approach may take hold in Ontario. For example, in G-Civil Inc. v. Her Majesty in Right of Canada, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that judicial review is required before the party could bring an action against the Crown.119 This case will be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal within the next year, along with a number of other cases that raise a similar issue.120

 

Footnotes

1 Peter W. Hogg and Patrick J. Monahan, Liability of the Crown, 3rd ed. (Scarborough, ON: Carswell, 2000) at 4.

2 Ibid. at 5.

3 Ibid. at 64.

4 R.S.O. 1990, c. P.27. PACA authorizes the commencement of court proceedings against the Provincial Crown only for events that occurred after 1963; a petition of right must be brought against the Provincial Crown for events that occurred before 1963.

5 Ibid. s. 2 (1).

6 R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50 [CLPA].

7 Crown Liability and Proceedings (Provincial Court) Regulations, SOR/91-604. These regulations apply only to proceedings in the provincial court [CLPA Regulations].

8 See CLPA, supra note 6, s. 27; PACA, supra note 4, s. 13.

9 R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.

10 SOR/98-106.

11 R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

12 R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

13 Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 626/00.

14 Greeley v. "Tami Joan" (The) (1996), 113 F.T.R. 66 (T.D.) [Tami Joan].

15 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 360.

16 R.S.C. 1985, c. E-21

17 CLPA, supra note 6, s. 21(2).

18 Prudential Assurance Co. v. Canada, [1993] 2 F.C. 293 (C.A.).

19 See Anglophoto Ltd. v. "Ikaros" (The), [1974] 1 F.C. 327 (C.A.); Varnam v. Canada (Min. of National Health & Welfare), [1988] 2 F.C. 454 (C.A).

20 See Federal Courts Act, supra note 9, ss. 20-22. The Supreme Court of Canada set out a three-part test to be used in determining if the Federal Court has jurisdiction of a claim in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752.

21 Unless a statute requires a proceeding against the Federal Crown to be brought in the Federal Court.

22 Tami Joan, supra note 14.

23 PACA, supra note 4, s. 9.

24 R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50, s. 33(7).

25 Galati v. McGuinty, [1999] O.J. No. 2171 (Sup. Ct.); B.C.T.F. v. British Columbia (A.G.), [1986] 2 W.W.R. 469 (B.C. Sup. Ct.).

26 Deep v. Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 2734 (Sup. Ct.) at para. 82, aff'd [2005] O.J. No. 1294 (C.A.).

27 Ibid. at para. 83; Sinclair v. Ontario, [1996] O.J. No. 3192 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)) at para. 5; Canada (National Harbours Board) v. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R. 60, at 71-72.; Air India, Re (1987), 62 O.R. (2d) 130 (H.C.) at para. 136.

28 PACA, supra note 4, s. 2(2)(c). In these claims, the minister should still not be named since a minister is a servant of the Crown and cannot be vicariously liable for other servants of the Crown.

29 PACA, supra note 4, s. 5(2).

30 CLPA, supra note 6, s. 23(1); See Munro v. Canada (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 1, 98 D.L.R. (4th) 662 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)).

31 Federal Courts Act, supra note 31, s. 48 & Schedule; see Liebemann v. Canada (Min. of National Defence), [1994] 2 F.C. 3, 69 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.).

32 Canada (National Harbours Board) v. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R. 60.

33 For example, see Air India Flight 182 Disaster Claimants v. Air India (1987) 62 O.R. (2d) 130 (H.C.); Peter G. White Management Ltd. v. Canada (Min. of Canadian Heritage), 2004 FC 346 (T.D).

34 Vancouver Island Peace Society v. Canada, [1994] 1 F.C. 102, aff'd (1995), 16 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 24 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, (1995) 17 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 298 (S.C.C.).

35 Mandate Erectors & Welding Ltd. v. Canada, [1996] 118 F.T.R. 290 (T.D.) at para. 19.

36 Canada (Ministry of Industry, Trade & Commerce) v. Allis-Chalmers Canada Ltd. (1977), 77 D.L.R. (3rd) 633 (Q.C.A.).

37 Notice is not required to be given to a minister or Crown employee who is being sued in his or her personal capacity.

38 Mattick Estate v. Ontario (2001), 195 D.L.R. (4th) 540, 52 O.R. (3d) 221 (C.A.). In that case, the notice was sufficient even though the plaintiff failed to state that he intended to bring legal action because it was reasonable for the Crown to realize that a legal claim would result.

39 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 77.

40 Beardsley v. Ontario (2001), 57 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.); Yule v. Mamakwa, [1998] O.J. No. 4900, 83 A.C.W.S. (3d) 942, 81 O.T.C. 278 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)); Misquadis v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 315 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.).

41 Misquadis v. Canada (A.G.) (2004), 315 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.).

42 PACA, supra note 4, s. 7(1). Court of Justice Act, supra note 11, s. 109(2.2).

43 PACA, supra note 4, s. 7(2).

44 Ibid., s. 7(3).

45 R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50 , s. 33(4).

46 Courts of Justice Act, supra note 11, s. 109(2.2).

47 Ibid.; Federal Courts Act, supra note 9, s. 57. Form 69 (Federal Courts Rules) should be used where the proceeding will be commenced in the Federal Courts.

48 CLPA, supra note 6, s. 25.

49 Federal Courts Rules, supra note 10, R. 110.

50 Rules of Civil Procedure, supra note 12, R. 16.01.

51 CLPA, supra note 6, s. 23(2); CLPA Regulations, supra note 6, s. 4.

52 Federal Courts Rules, supra note 10, R. 127.

53 Ibid. R. 133(1).

54 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 65.

55 PACA, supra note 4, s. 8. However, where PACA is precluded in a piece of legislation governing a claim, the Crown cannot be compelled to produce civil servants for discovery; see Wren v. Ontario (Superintendent of Insurance) (1976), 1 C.P.C. 145 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

56 Ibid. s. 8(b).

57 Ibid.

58 Harrison Rock & Tunnel Co. v. R. (1980), 31 O.R. (2d) 573 (Ont. Master).

59 Proctor v. Canada [2000] O.J. No. 658 (Ont. Master).

60 Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate (1995), 38 C.P.C. (3d) 81 (Ont. Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)).

61 CLPA s. 27; see I.L.W.U. v. Canada (1987), 14 F.T.R. 289 (T.D.).

62 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 67.

63 Northern Goose Processors Ltd. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2000) 145 Man. R. (2d) 63, 218 W.A.C. 63, 47 C.P.C. (4th) 37 (C.A.);Lord v. Royal Columbian Hospital (1981), 43 B.C.L.R. 147 (C.A.).

64 Canadian Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Oland (1997), 12 C.P.C. (4th) 50 (Alta. C.A.).

65 Federal Courts Rules, R. 237(2); see I.L.W.U. v. Canada (1987), 14 F.T.R. 289 (T.D.).

66 Canada (Min. of National Defence & Immigration) v. Dueck (1998), 147 F.T.R. 157 (T.D.).

67 United Terminals Ltd. v. M.N.R., [1992] 3 F.C. 302 (C.A).

68 Telezone Inc. v. Canada (A.G.) (2007), 180 O.A.C. 360, 235 D.L.R. (4th) 719, 69 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.).

69 Zundel (Re), 2004 FC 798; Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc. 2008 CarswellNat 672; 2008 FC 321; Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1238.

70 Babcock v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] B.C.W.L.D. 635, 214 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.).

71 R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 [FOIPPA], s. 12(1).

72 R.S.C. 1986 c. A-1. [Access to Information Act], s. 13.

73 R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15, s. 21(12).

74 R.S.O. 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 27(3).

75 Rules of Civil Procedure, supra note 12, R. 13.01(2); see Pinet v. Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre (2006), 80 O.R. (3d) 139, [2006] O.J. No. 687 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), for a long list of principles that the court will examine in deciding whether to permit intervention.

76 Halpern v. Toronto (City) (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 742 (Sup. Ct.).

77 C.U.P.E. v. Cdn Airlines Int. Ltd. (2000), 37 C.H.R.R. D/325 (F.C.A.).

78 Li v. Canada (Min. of Citizenship & Immigration) (2004), 40 Imm. L.R. (3d) 161 (F.C.A.).

79 H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 441.

80 Supra.

81 Supra.

82 Ibid. s. 2; FOIPPA, supra note 71, s. 1 (a) & 10.

83 Access to Information Act, supra note 72, s. 23; FOIPPA, supra note 71, s. 19.

84 FOIPPA, supra note 71, s. 64, expressly states that it does not impose any limitation on information otherwise available by law to a party to litigation or any limitation on the power of a court or tribunal to compel a witness to testify or compel the production of documents. This provision suggests that the litigation process should operate independently from the access to information outlined under FOIPPA.

85 R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, s. 35.

86 R.S.C. 2002, c. 1, s. 123.

87 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 31. See Centre d'information et d'animation communautaire v. The Queen, [1984] 2 F.C. 866 (C.A.).

88 PACA, supra note 4, s. 14; CLPA, supra note 6, s. 22.

89 Ibid.

90 Patrick J. Monahan, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006) at 151.

91 Société Asbestos v. Société Nationale de l'amiante, [1979] C.A. 342 (C.A.); Van Mulligan v. Sask. Housing Corp. (1982) 23 Sask. E. 66 (Q.B.); Levesque v. Canada (A.G.), [1986] 2 F.C. 287 (T.D.).

92 RJR-McDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311.

93 Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764.

94 PACA , supra note 4, s. 14(2); CLPA, supra note 6, s. 22(2).

95 Lac Seul First Nation v. Canada (Min. of Indian Affairs & Northern Development), [2004] 4 C.N.L.R. 99 (F.C.T.D.).

96 Livent Inc. v. Heritage Foundation, [1996] O.J. No. 2016 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)).

97 Ibid.

98 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 51.

99 Ibid. at 52.

100 CLPA, supra note 6, s. 29; PACA, supra note 4, s. 21.

101 PACA, supra note 4, s. 22; CLPA supra note 6, s. 30.

102 PACA, supra note 4, s. 22(c).

103 Hogg and Monahan, supra note 1 at 54.

104 R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.

105 Ibid. at ss. 6(1) & (2).

106 The constitutionality of referring this power to the Federal Courts was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pringle v. Fraser, [1972] S.C.R. 821. However, provincial courts retain the authority to determine the validity and applicability of federal jurisdiction and retain exclusive authority to issue habeas corpus for and subjiciendum outside of issuing this remedy to members of the Canadian Forces serving outside of Canada. See Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307.

107 Federal Courts Act, supra note 9, s. 18.1(1).

108 Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-kwa-mish Tribes v. Canada (Min. of Fisheries & Oceans) (2003), 227 F.T.R 96, aff'd 2003 FCA 484.

109 For example, see Federal Courts Act, supra note 9, s. 28; the Federal Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear applications relating to judicial review under the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act and the Canada Pension Plan.

110 Brown & Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada, looseleaf (Toronto: Cavasback Publishing, 1998). For example, see Harlekin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561 (S.C.C.).

111 Ibid. at 3-6.

112 Froom v. Canada (Min. of Justice), [2005] 2 F.C.R. 195 (C.A.).

113 Brown & Evans, supra note 110 at 3-7.

114 Harelkin, supra note 110.

115 Penton v. Metis Nation of Alberta Assn., [1995] 8 W.W.R. 39 (Alta. Q.B.).

116 Canada v. Grenier, [2006] 2 F.C. 287 (C.A.); Canada v. Tremblay, [2004] 4 F.C.R. 165 (C.A.).

117 Ibid. [Grenier].

118 Seaway Trust Co. v. Ontario (1993), 41 O.R. (2d) 532 (C.A.); First Real Properties Ltd. v. Hamilton (City) (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 477 (Div. Ct.); Keewatin v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) (2003), 66 O.R.(3d) 370 (Div. Ct.).

119 (2006) 154 A.C.W.S.(3d) 106 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

120 Telezone Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [2007] O.J. No. 4766 (Sup. Ct.); Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc. v. The Attorney General of Canada (2007), 30 C.E.L.R. (3d) 281 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions