Mainville v. Canada (Attorney General)

Mainville v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-06-08
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 196
File numbers
A-190-07
Decision Content
Date: 20090608
Docket: A-190-07
Citation: 2009 FCA 196
CORAM: NADON J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
AURÉLIEN MAINVILLE
and
CLAUDE PAULIN
Appellants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on June 8, 2009.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on June 8, 2009.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Cour d'appel fédérale
CANADA
Federal Court of Appeal
Date: 20090608
Docket: A-190-07
Citation: 2009 FCA 196
CORAM: NADON J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
AURÉLIEN MAINVILLE
and
CLAUDE PAULIN
Appellants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on June 8, 2009)
NADON J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Justice Blanchard of the Federal Court, dated March 6, 2007, dismissing the appellants’ application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Minister) dated March 30, 2006.
[2] We are all of the opinion that there is no basis for intervening.
[3] We are satisfied that Justice Blanchard made no error in law or in the findings of fact he made in support of his assessment of the case.
[4] In reality, the appellants are asking us, as they asked Justice Blanchard, to amend the Minister’s March 30, 2006, fishing plan. In other words, the appellants are asking us to exercise, but in a different way, the discretion exercised by the Minister in formulating his fishing plan and issuing fishing licences.
[5] The fishing plan is under the sole responsibility of the Minister and an integral part of his discretion; therefore, we cannot intervene unless the Minister has devised his plan and issued the licences on the basis of irrelevant considerations, or acted arbitrarily or in bad faith. In our opinion, there is no evidence in the record to support such a proposal.
[6] Lastly, so that there is no doubt on this subject, we are satisfied, in light of all the circumstances (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817), that the Minister did not breach the principles of natural justice in developing his fishing plan and issuing fishing licenses to those to whom he had awarded a portion of the TAC (total allowable catch) of snow crab in areas 12, 18, 25 and 26.
[7] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“M. Nadon”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Tu-Quynh Trinh
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-190-07
(APPEAL OF AN ORDER OF JUSTICE BLANCHARD OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED MARCH 6, 2007, DOCKET T-742-06.)
STYLE OF CAUSE: AURÉLIEN MAINVILLE ET AL.
v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING: June 8, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
BLAIS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Jean-Marc Gauvin
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Paul Marquis
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Godin Lizotte
Shippigan, NB
FOR THE APPELLANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT