Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Crown law - Crown liability - Administrative law - Judicial review - Courts - Jurisdiction - Respondent commencing action against federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for damages for false imprisonment and breach of Charter rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to provide a full contextual interpretation of s. 18(1) of the FCA - Whether the remedy sought by the Respondent determines the application of s. 18(1) of the FCA - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the true essence of the claim to determine whether its success would depend on finding that a decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal was invalid or unlawful - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognize that a decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal that has not been challenged through judicial review in the Federal Court remains valid and lawful and continues to have legal effect - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to recognize that a valid decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal may not be tortious - Whether the Respondent could proceed with his action for damages, even though he had never directly challenged the segregation decision by way of judicial review in the Federal Court or by seeking habeas corpus - Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.

The Respondent commenced a proceeding against the federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Generally, the claim was for damages for the tort of wrongful or false imprisonment and for breach of Charter rights. The Respondent had been held in involuntary solitary confinement continuously for four years and six months in penitentiaries where the Appellant Blackler was the warden. The Respondent did not seek to impugn the decisions to place him in administrative segregation. Rather, he alleged that such a long period of confinement constituted arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment, and alleged that the decisions contravened the applicable legislation and regulations and had been made negligently or deliberately and maliciously. The Appellant Attorney General of Canada brought a motion pursuant to rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. Relying on Grenier v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005, 262 D.L.R. (4th) 337 (F.C.A.), and s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act (“FCA”), the Attorney General asserted that since an essential element of the claim involved an attack on a decision of a “federal board, commission or tribunal” within the meaning of the FCA, jurisdiction lay in the Federal Court. The motions judge, applying Grenier, held that before seeking damages against the Crown arising from an administrative decision, it was first necessary to be successful in an application to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision at issue. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the claim clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, since it did not seek the type of relief outlined in s. 18 of the FCA. Also, it did not constitute a collateral attack of an administrative decision, since it did not seek to impugn the underlying administrative decisions.