On Christmas Eve, the Ontario Court of Appeal gave citizens and companies an important gift: a ruling that makes it easier to sue the feds.
It's a significant decision, and to steal an analogy from the clever Justice Stephen Borins, the court has rejected a requirement that put litigants into a real-life version of Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
The ruling says lawsuits seeking financial damages against Ottawa may be launched in the superior courts rather than the Federal Court.
The Crown, relying on Grenier v. Canada, wanted to have the requirement upheld that potential litigants go first to the Federal Court within 30 days as a preliminary step. It was argued the actions in this instance were attacks on decisions made by an administrative board or tribunal and thus couldn't start in the Superior Court.
But, to quote Borins, the procedure takes litigants back to the days of the bard's ninth novel, "where they had to go from court to court until they were finally able to obtain their remedy." He further said Grenier "was not correctly decided. In any event, it is not binding on this court."
Said Borins: "Moreover, if generally accepted, Grenier's insistence that actions in provincial superior courts against the Crown are precluded without a prior application for judicial review would have far-reaching implications with respect to principles of Crown liability.
In particular, the Crown's position as based on Grenier, would require split or multiple proceedings in different forums, waste scarce judicial resources, impose huge additional costs on plaintiffs, and subject every tort and contract claim against the Crown to a draconian 30-day limitation period."
The ruling arises from a consolidated hearing involving four unrelated lawsuits: one by high-profile bank robber Micky McArthur, and three by companies. Each appeal raised the same issue, whether the jurisdiction over each plaintiff's claim lies in the Superior Court or in the Federal Court.
In each case the claims were launched in the Superior Court and were collectively for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort, and misfeasance in public office.
"This is a very significant ruling," Patrick Monahan, who acted for one of the companies Telezone Inc., told the National Post. Monahan, who is also the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, added that it removes barriers for "Canadians who try to hold the government to account."
The decision makes it easier for federal inmates to sue. "It's a real Christmas present for civil lawyers and speeds the process up," Cobourg lawyer John Hill told the Toronto Sun. "Under the old regime, inmates were required to exhaust all internal remedies before they could file a claim. And that could take up to a year.
"And if they didn't do it that way, it would get tossed out of court. Now they can sue immediately at Superior Court," added Hill.
"This ruling provides equal access to justice to everyone from ordinary citizens to ultra-respectable multi-million-dollar companies and federal inmates," John Ryder-Burbidge, who represented McArthur, told the Sun. "It's justice for one and all."
It wouldn't be a great shock to see this decision appealed.
But, if so, hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with our appeal court and ensure we all have an easier time of keeping Ottawa accountable.
It's a significant decision, and to steal an analogy from the clever Justice Stephen Borins, the court has rejected a requirement that put litigants into a real-life version of Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
The ruling says lawsuits seeking financial damages against Ottawa may be launched in the superior courts rather than the Federal Court.
The Crown, relying on Grenier v. Canada, wanted to have the requirement upheld that potential litigants go first to the Federal Court within 30 days as a preliminary step. It was argued the actions in this instance were attacks on decisions made by an administrative board or tribunal and thus couldn't start in the Superior Court.
But, to quote Borins, the procedure takes litigants back to the days of the bard's ninth novel, "where they had to go from court to court until they were finally able to obtain their remedy." He further said Grenier "was not correctly decided. In any event, it is not binding on this court."
Said Borins: "Moreover, if generally accepted, Grenier's insistence that actions in provincial superior courts against the Crown are precluded without a prior application for judicial review would have far-reaching implications with respect to principles of Crown liability.
In particular, the Crown's position as based on Grenier, would require split or multiple proceedings in different forums, waste scarce judicial resources, impose huge additional costs on plaintiffs, and subject every tort and contract claim against the Crown to a draconian 30-day limitation period."
The ruling arises from a consolidated hearing involving four unrelated lawsuits: one by high-profile bank robber Micky McArthur, and three by companies. Each appeal raised the same issue, whether the jurisdiction over each plaintiff's claim lies in the Superior Court or in the Federal Court.
In each case the claims were launched in the Superior Court and were collectively for damages for false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights, breach of contract, tort, and misfeasance in public office.
"This is a very significant ruling," Patrick Monahan, who acted for one of the companies Telezone Inc., told the National Post. Monahan, who is also the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, added that it removes barriers for "Canadians who try to hold the government to account."
The decision makes it easier for federal inmates to sue. "It's a real Christmas present for civil lawyers and speeds the process up," Cobourg lawyer John Hill told the Toronto Sun. "Under the old regime, inmates were required to exhaust all internal remedies before they could file a claim. And that could take up to a year.
"And if they didn't do it that way, it would get tossed out of court. Now they can sue immediately at Superior Court," added Hill.
"This ruling provides equal access to justice to everyone from ordinary citizens to ultra-respectable multi-million-dollar companies and federal inmates," John Ryder-Burbidge, who represented McArthur, told the Sun. "It's justice for one and all."
It wouldn't be a great shock to see this decision appealed.
But, if so, hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with our appeal court and ensure we all have an easier time of keeping Ottawa accountable.
- Gretchen Drummie
