Newell v. Canada

Newell v. Canada

The amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff alleged only a reduction of a quota under a licensing regime that confers a privilege not a legal right, did not plead facts establishing that the reductions were penal and ultra vires or that the Crown acted in bad faith;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCT 373
Parties
Plaintiff (representative): William H. Newell; Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Action Seeking Damages Arising From Administrative Sanctions (motion to Strike) / Pre Trial: Defendant's Motion to Strike Amended Statement of Claim for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
Defendant's motion allowed; amended Statement of Claim struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Administrative Sanctions, Fisheries Licensing, Tortious Interference With Economic Interests, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Bad Faith, Class Action Procedure, Strike Pleadings
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Fisheries Law Tort Law Public Law Civil Procedure Administrative Sanctions Fisheries Licensing Tortious Interference With Economic Interests +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William H. Newell

Plaintiff (representative)

Her Majesty the Queen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Civil Action Seeking Damages Arising From Administrative Sanctions (motion to Strike) / Pre Trial: Defendant's Motion to Strike Amended Statement of Claim for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether a fishing licence or quota gives rise to a legal right creating a cause of action for tortious interference
  3. 3 Whether DFO's administrative quota reductions were penal/ultra vires s.7 of the Fisheries Act

Ratio Decidendi

The amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff alleged only a reduction of a quota under a licensing regime that confers a privilege not a legal right, did not plead facts establishing that the reductions were penal and ultra vires or that the Crown acted in bad faith; absent such pleaded facts the claim in tortious interference with economic interests cannot succeed and must be struck under the Rules.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion allowed; amended Statement of Claim struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Amended Statement of Claim struck out
  • No costs awarded to either party