A-418-76
Canadian Javelin Limited, Newfoundland and
Labrador Corporation Limited, and Dominion
Jubilee Corporation Limited (Appellants) (Plain-
tiffs)
v.
The Queen in the right of Newfoundland
(Respondent) (Defendant)
and
Pickands Mather & Co. (Mis -en-cause)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Pratte and Urie
JJ.—Ottawa, June 22, 1977.
Jurisdiction — Crown — Appeal of action dismissed for
want of jurisdiction — Action by three appellants against the
Queen in right of Newfoundland — Whether or not s. 23 of the
Federal Court Act confers jurisdiction on the Trial Division —
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, ss. 2, 17(1),
23 — Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-23, ss. 16, 28.
The appellants appeal the Trial Division's dismissal of their
action for want of jurisdiction. They contend that, in their case
against the Queen in right of Newfoundland, section 23 of the
Federal Court Act confers jurisdiction on the Trial Division.
Held, the appeal is dismissed. The Crown cannot be implead-
ed in a court in respect of a claim against the Crown except
where statutory jurisdiction has been conferred on the court to
entertain claims against the Crown of a class in which the
particular claim falls. The Federal Court Act, read as a whole
or section 23 read in particular, is not so framed as to confer
jurisdiction in respect of a claim by an individual or a corpora
tion against Her Majesty in right of Newfoundland. This flows
from the rule of interpretation in section 16 of the Interpreta
tion Act read with that Act's definition of "Her Majesty" in
section 28. Where the Federal Court Act contemplates confer
ring jurisdiction in claims against the Crown, it does so by
express reference to claims against the Crown, defined by the
Act as Her Majesty in right of Canada.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Simon Potter for appellants.
James J. Greene, Q.C., for respondent.
John J. O'Neill, Q.C., for mis -en-cause.
SOLICITORS:
Ogilvy, Montgomery, Renault, Clarke, Kirk-
patrick, Hannon & Howard, Montreal, for
appellants.
O'Dea, Greene, Puddester & Thompson, St.
John's, for respondent.
O'Neill, Riche, O'Reilly & Noseworthy, St.
John's, for mis -en-cause.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
JACKETT C.J.: This is an appeal from a judg
ment of the Trial Division dismissing an action for
want of jurisdiction.
The action is by three corporations against "Her
Majesty the Queen, in the right of Newfound-
land," and the appellants support its contention
that the Trial Division has jurisdiction on section
23 of the Federal Court Act, which reads as
follows:
23. The Trial Division has concurrent original jurisdiction as
well between subject and subject as otherwise, in all cases in
which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under an
Act of the Parliament of Canada or otherwise in relation to any
matter coming within any following class of subjects, namely
bills of exchange and promissory notes where the Crown is a
party to the proceedings, aeronautics, and works and undertak
ings connecting a province with any other province or extending
beyond the limits of a province, except to the extent that
jurisdiction has been otherwise specially assigned.'
In `my view, it is clear law that the Crown
cannot be impleaded in a court in respect of a
claim against the Crown except where statutory
jurisdiction has been conferred on the court to
entertain claims against the Crown of a class in
which the particular claim falls. Compare Young
v. SS. "Scotia". 2
Reading the Federal Court Act as a whole and
section 23 in particular, I am satisfied that that
statute is not so framed as to confer jurisdiction in
respect of a claim by an individual or a corporation
against Her Majesty in right of Newfoundland.
This, in my view, flows from the rule of interpreta-
I As I understand them, other submissions made on behalf of
the appellants relate to the substance of the appellants' claims
against the respondent and not to the jurisdiction of the Trial
Division to entertain them.
2 [ 1903] A.C. 501, at page 505.
tion in section 16 of the Interpretation Act 3 read
with the definition of "Her Majesty" in section 28
thereof. Those provisions read:
16. No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her
Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner,
except only as therein mentioned or referred to.
28. In every enactment
"Her Majesty", "His Majesty", "the Queen", "the King" or
"the Crown" means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom,
Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of
the Commonwealth;
It is worthy of note that, where the Federal
Court Act contemplates conferring jurisdiction in
claims against Her Majesty, it does so (e.g., sec
tion 17(1)) by express reference to claims against
the "Crown", which is defined, for purposes of the
Federal Court Act, by section 2 thereof as "Her
Majesty in right of Canada". It also provides for
payment of judgments in such cases out of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada (section
57(3)). 4
Having regard to my view as to the effect of the
Federal Court Act, it is unnecessary, in my view,
to consider the ambit of section 101 of The British
North America Act, 1867 or the limitation on
Parliament's powers arising out of sections 53 and
90 of The British North America Act. 5
In my view, the appeal should be dismissed with
costs.
* * *
PRATTE J. concurred.
* * *
URIE J. concurred.
3 R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23.
4 There is also a provision (section 19) conferring jurisdiction
(conditional on concurring provincial legislation) in disputes
between Canada and a province or between provinces.
5 Compare Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General
of Nova Scotia [ 1930] S.C.R. 554.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.