Canada (Attorney General) v. Regroupement constitué de l'APVQ et de la STCVQ

Canada (Attorney General) v. Regroupement constitué de l'APVQ et de la STCVQ
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2003-07-14
Neutral citation
2003 FCA 304
File numbers
A-241-03
Decision Content
Date: 20030714
Docket: A-241-03
Citation: 2003 FCA 304
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Plaintiff
and
GROUP CONSISTING OF THE ASSOCIATION DES
PROFESSIONNELLES ET DES PROFESSIONNELS DE LA VIDÉO DU
QUÉBEC (APVQ) AND THE SYNDICAT DES TECHNICIENS DU CINÉMA ET
DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (STCVQ) (now known as the
ALLIANCE QUÉBÉCOISE DES TECHNICIENS DE L'IMAGE ET DU SON)
Defendant
Written motion decided without appearance by parties.
Order made at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 14, 2003.
REASONS FOR ORDER: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20030714
Docket: A-241-03
Citation: 2003 FCA 304
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Plaintiff
and
GROUP CONSISTING OF THE ASSOCIATION DES
PROFESSIONNELLES ET DES PROFESSIONNELS DE LA VIDÉO DU
QUÉBEC (APVQ) AND THE SYNDICAT DES TECHNICIENS DU CINÉMA ET
DE LA VIDÉO DU QUÉBEC (STCVQ) (now known as the
ALLIANCE QUÉBÉCOISE DES TECHNICIENS DE L'IMAGE ET DU SON)
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] This motion to dismiss is actually based on Rule 221, which does not apply to applications for judicial review. In David Bull Laboratories (Canada) v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588, this Court recognized that the court still has jurisdiction, but only in "very exceptional" cases, when a notice of motion is "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success" (at 600). David Bull Laboratories, also reported as Pharmacia Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) in some reports, including (1994) 176 N.R. 48, has been followed by a large number of decisions in this Court.
[2] The defendant essentially objected to the fact that the plaintiff expressly relied in support of its application for a judicial review only on s. 18.1(4)(c) of the Federal Court Act, which is not one of those mentioned in the privative clause contained in s. 21(1) of the Status of the Artist Act (S.C. 1992, c. 33).
[3] This argument seems to me to be more procedural than jurisdictional at this stage. I do not feel sufficiently certain that it should be accepted in applying the rule laid down in David Bull Laboratories.
[4] The motion is dismissed with costs.
[5] The time allowed the defendant for filing his affidavits under Rule 307 will run from the date of this order.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-241-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: The Attorney General of Canada v. Group consisting of the Association des professionnelles et des professionnels de la vidéo du Québec (APVQ) and the Syndicat des techniciens du cinéma et de la vidéo du Québec (STCVQ) (now known as the Alliance québécoise des techniciens de l'image et du son)
WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER: Décary J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: July 14, 2003
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Raymond Piché FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Daniel Payette FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Payette Firm FOR THE DEFENDANT
Montréal, Quebec