Moreau v. Air Canada

Moreau v. Air Canada

The motion to strike is granted in part because extraordinary remedies of quo warranto and mandamus are not available against Air Canada in a s.77 OLA proceeding and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Application are therefore struck; the claim based on subparagraph 41(6)(c)(iii) is struck because the provision was not in force at the time the positions were staffed; however the core statutory question as to the interpretation of section 91 of the OLA is not settled and the NoA is not bereft of any possibility of success on that point, so declaratory relief under s.77(4), a public apology claim and damages claim are not struck and may proceed to merits; costs are in the cause and...

Citation
2025 FC 675
Parties
Applicant / Responding Party: Michael Moreau; Respondent / Moving Party: Air Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Notice of Application Under Section 77 of the Official Languages Act / Interlocutory Motion to Strike Under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules
Outcome
Motion to strike granted in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Section 77 OLA, Section 91 OLA, Subparagraph 41(6)(c)(iii) OLA, Motion to Strike, Abuse of Process, Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Declaratory Relief, Damages, Compelled Speech / Apology Orders
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Official Languages Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Constitutional Law (remedies) Section 77 OLA Section 91 OLA Subparagraph 41(6)(c)(iii) OLA +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Moreau

Applicant / Responding Party

Air Canada

Respondent / Moving Party

Procedural Posture

Notice of Application Under Section 77 of the Official Languages Act / Interlocutory Motion to Strike Under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Application is plain and obvious and bereft of any possibility of success
  2. 2 Proper interpretation and scope of section 91 of the Official Languages Act
  3. 3 Whether remedial orders sought (quo warranto, mandamus, declaratory relief, apology, damages) are available in proceedings under s.77 OLA

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to strike is granted in part because extraordinary remedies of quo warranto and mandamus are not available against Air Canada in a s.77 OLA proceeding and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Application are therefore struck; the claim based on subparagraph 41(6)(c)(iii) is struck because the provision was not in force at the time the positions were staffed; however the core statutory question as to the interpretation of section 91 of the OLA is not settled and the NoA is not bereft of any possibility of success on that point, so declaratory relief under s.77(4), a public apology claim and damages claim are not struck and may proceed to merits; costs are in the cause and...

Court Disposition

Motion to strike granted in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Motion granted in part.
  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Application are struck.