MIL Davie Inc. v. Société d'exploitation et de développement d'Hibernia Ltée
A-314-97
Denault J.A. (ex officio), Létourneau J.A. and Chevalier D.J.
7/5/98
10 pp.
Appeal from order of Trial Division granting motion of respondent alleging Trial Division had no jurisdiction to hear action in damages launched by appellant-Appellant seeking damages of $17,468,000 as result of respondent's decision awarding St-John Shipbuilding Ltd. (SJSL) a completion contract to allegedly finish manufacturing of certain topside modules concerning Hibernia oilfield project-Appellant alleging respondent's decision awarding completion contract to SJSL made without seeking tenders, in bad faith and with malice-Hence action for damages based on Competition Act, s. 36 giving jurisdiction to Federal Court to hear such actions-Trial Division Judge granting respondent's motion on two bases: first, appellant's statement of claim not clearly alleging factual basis for alleged conspiracy contemplated by Competition Act, s. 45; second, statement of claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action in relation to s. 45-Some confusion in case law as to proper rule to resort to in order to raise objection to jurisdiction of Court-Generally speaking, where objection taken to its jurisdiction, Court must be satisfied jurisdictional facts or allegations of such facts supporting attribution of jurisdiction-Trial Division Judge misdirecting himself in concluding only three general allegations or bald assertions of anti-competitive activity, unsubstantiated with specific facts or proper factual basis-Paragraphs 62 to 112 and 114 to 120 of statement of claim all refer to specific facts, either material to jurisdictional facts necessary under Competition Act, ss. 36 and 45, establishing jurisdiction of Trial Division or tending to show reasonable cause of action-As alternative ground in support of motion to stay action, respondent relied on CanadaNewfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, ss. 4 and 215, and Federal Court Act, s. 17(6)-Implementation Act not barring Federal Court from exercising jurisdiction to enforce Competition Act-Competition Act not, strictly speaking, Act of Parliament applying federal laws to offshore areas, and no inconsistency or conflict between Competition Act and Implementation Act in respect of subject of action-As for argument relating to Federal Court Act, s. 17(6), must be analysed in connection with Implementation Act, s. 215-Appeal allowed-Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1987, c. 3, ss. 4, 215-Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34, ss. 36 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 1, s. 11), 45 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 19, s. 30; 1991, c. 45, s. 547; c. 46, s. 590; c. 47, s. 714)-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 17(6) (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 3).