Hijos v. Canada (Attorney General)

Hijos v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-05-01 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 167 File numbers A-3-02 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20020501 Docket: A-3-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 167 PRESENT: SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JOSE PEREIRA E HIJOS, S.A. and ENRIQUE DAVILA GONZALEZ Appellants and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, May 1, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20020501 Docket: A-3-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 167 PRESENT: SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JOSE PEREIRA E HIJOS, S.A. and ENRIQUE DAVILA GONZALEZ Appellants and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER SHARLOW J.A. [1] The appellants Jose Pereira E Hijos S.A. and Enrique Davila Gonzalez are appealing the judgment of Nadon J. dated December 24, 2001 (2001 FCT 1434), now reported asJose Pereira E Hijos, S.A. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1950 (T.D.). The parties have filed their memoranda of fact and law and an agreement as to the contents of the appeal book, but not the appeal books themselves. The respondent Attorney General of Canada (the Crown) has filed a notice of motion seeking a number of orders and directions relating to the appeal books. [2] Before dealing with the Crown's motions, I will summarize the background facts. In 1995, the appellants commenced an action against the Crown (T-1602-95) for damages relating to the Crown's seizure of their fishing trawler in March of 1995 approximately 240 miles east of Canada. It appears that the seizure was based in part on an amendment to section 21 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulation, which came into force on March 3, 1995. In their statement of claim, the appellants allege among other things that the amendment is ultra vires. [3] Pursuant to an order of MacKay J. dated October 4, 2000, the appellants amended their statement of claim to add the following paragraphs relating to the impugned regulation (as quoted by Nadon J.): 34. The plaintiffs state further that the Regulation (P.C.1995-372) was not enacted for the purposes of sound conservation and management or for any other purpose authorized by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and was ultra vires the authority conferred by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. 35. The plaintiffs state further that the defendant engaged in vote buying to obtain an unfair proportion of the total allowable catch of Greenland Halibut, and that such vote buying precipitated in breakdown in international agreements for fishing the international sea. The plaintiffs state the authority conferred by the Coast Fisheries Protection Act for the management of fishing in international waters did not authorize vote buying by Canada. [4] The alleged "vote buying" apparently relates to proceedings of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) in Brussels between January 31 and February 1, 1995. The position of the plaintiffs is that Canada obtained a favourable vote at that meeting with respect to the 1995 turbot (Greenland halibut) quota by making certain promises to one or more other member nations. [5] On July 13, 2001, counsel for the appellants examined Leo Strowbridge, a Crown official, for discovery. Mr. Strowbridge was asked questions about the NAFO meeting and vote. Counsel for the Crown objected to certain questions on the basis of sections 37and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S. C. 1985, c. C-5. Those provisions read as follows: 37. (1) A minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other person interested may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying orally or in writing to the court, person or body that the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of a specified public interest. 37. (1) Un ministre fédéral ou toute autre personne intéressée peut s'opposer à la divulgation de renseignements devant un tribunal, un organisme ou une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements, en attestant verbalement ou par écrit devant eux que ces renseignements ne devraient pas être divulgués pour des raisons d'intérêt public déterminées. (2) Subject to sections 38 and 39, where an objection to the disclosure of information is made under subsection (1) before a superior court, that court may examine or hear the information and order its disclosure, subject to such restrictions or conditions as it deems appropriate, if it concludes that, in the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the specified public interest. (2) Sous réserve des articles 38 et 39, dans les cas où l'opposition visée au paragraphe (1) est portée devant une cour supérieure, celle-ci peut prendre connaissance des renseignements et ordonner leur divulgation, sous réserve des restrictions ou conditions qu'elle estime indiquées, si elle conclut qu'en l'espèce, les raisons d'intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation l'emportent sur les raisons d'intérêt public invoquées lors de l'attestation. (3) Subject to sections 38 and 39, where an objection to the disclosure of information is made under subsection (1) before a court, person or body other than a superior court, the objection may be determined, on application, in accordance with subsection (2) by (3) Sous réserve des articles 38 et 39, dans les cas où l'opposition visée au paragraphe (1) est portée devant le tribunal, un organisme ou une personne qui ne constituent pas une cour supérieure, la question peut être décidée conformément au paragraphe (2), sur demande, par_: (a) the Federal Court-Trial Division, in the case of a person or body vested with power to compel production by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament if the person or body is not a court established under a law of a province; or a) la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale, dans les cas où l'organisme ou la personne investis du pouvoir de contraindre à la production de renseignements en vertu d'une loi fédérale ne constituent pas un tribunal régi par le droit d'une province; (b) the trial division or trial court of the superior court of the province within which the court, person or body exercises its jurisdiction, in any other case. b) la division ou cour de première instance de la cour supérieure de la province dans le ressort de laquelle le tribunal, l'organisme ou la personne ont compétence, dans les autres cas. (4) An application pursuant to subsection (3) shall be made within ten days after the objection is made or within such further or lesser time as the court having jurisdiction to hear the application considers appropriate in the circumstances. (4) Le délai dans lequel la demande visée au paragraphe (3) peut être faite est de dix jours suivant l'opposition, mais le tribunal saisi peut modifier ce délai s'il l'estime indiqué dans les circonstances. (5) An appeal lies from a determination under subsection (2) or (3) (5) L'appel des décisions rendues en vertu des paragraphes (2) ou (3) se fait_: (a) to the Federal Court of Appeal from a determination of the Federal Court-Trial Division; or a) devant la Cour d'appel fédérale, pour ce qui est de celles de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale; (b) to the court of appeal of a province from a determination of a trial division or trial court of a superior court of a province. b) devant la cour d'appel d'une province, pour ce qui est de celles de la division ou cour de première instance d'une cour supérieure d'une province. (6) An appeal under subsection (5) shall be brought within ten days from the date of the determination appealed from or within such further time as the court having jurisdiction to hear the appeal considers appropriate in the circumstances. (6) Le délai dans lequel l'appel prévu au paragraphe (5) peut être interjeté est de dix jours suivant la date de la décision frappée d'appel, mais la cour d'appel peut le proroger si elle l'estime indiqué dans les circonstances. (7) Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, (7) Nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale : a) an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment made pursuant to subsection (5) shall be made within ten days from the date of the judgment appealed from or within such further time as the court having jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal considers appropriate in the circumstances; and a) le délai de demande d'autorisation d'en appeler à la Cour suprême du Canada est de dix jours suivant le jugement frappé d'appel, visé au paragraphe (5), mais le tribunal compétent pour autoriser l'appel peut proroger ce délai s'il l'estime indiqué dans les circonstances; (b) where leave to appeal is granted, the appeal shall be brought in the manner set out in subsection 60(1) of the Supreme Court Act but within such time as the court that grants leave specifies. b) dans les cas où l'autorisation est accordée, l'appel est interjeté conformément au paragraphe 60(1) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, mais le délai qui s'applique est celui qu'a fixé le tribunal qui a autorisé l'appel. 38. (1) Where an objection to the disclosure of information is made under subsection 37(1) on grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to international relations or national defence or security, the objection may be determined, on application, in accordance with subsection 37(2) only by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, or such other judge of that Court as the Chief Justice may designate to hear such applications. 38. (1) Dans les cas où l'opposition visée au paragraphe 37(1) se fonde sur le motif que la divulgation porterait préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales, la question peut être décidée conformément au paragraphe 37(2), sur demande, mais uniquement par le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou tout autre juge de ce tribunal qu'il charge de l'audition de ce genre de demande. (2) An application under subsection (1) shall be made within ten days after the objection is made or within such further or lesser time as the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, or such other judge of that Court as the Chief Justice may designate to hear such applications, considers appropriate. (2) Le délai dans lequel la demande visée au paragraphe (1) peut être faite est de dix jours suivant l'opposition, mais le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou le juge de ce tribunal qu'il charge de l'audition de ce genre de demande peut modifier ce délai s'il l'estime indiqué. (3) An appeal lies from a determination under subsection (1) to the Federal Court of Appeal. 38(4) Subsections 37(6) and (7) apply (3) Il y a appel de la décision visée au paragraphe (1) devant la Cour d'appel fédérale. 38(4) Application des par. 37(6) et (7) (4) Subsection 37(6) applies in respect of appeals under subsection (3), and subsection 37(7) applies in respect of appeals from judgments made pursuant to subsection (3), with such modifications as the circumstances require. (4) Le paragraphe 37(6) s'applique aux appels prévus au paragraphe (3) et le paragraphe 37(7) s'applique aux appels des jugements rendus en vertu du paragraphe (3), compte tenu des adaptations de circonstance. (5) An application under subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of the application shall (a) be heard in camera; and (b) on the request of the person objecting to the disclosure of information, be heard and determined in the National Capital Region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act. (5) Les demandes visées au paragraphe (1) font, en premier ressort ou en appel, l'objet d'une audition à huis clos; celle-ci a lieu dans la région de la capitale nationale définie à l'annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale si la personne qui s'oppose à la divulgation le demande. (6) During the hearing of an application under subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of the application, the person who made the objection in respect of which the application was made or the appeal was brought shall, on the request of that person, be given the opportunity to make representations ex parte. 6) La personne qui a porté l'opposition qui fait l'objet d'une demande ou d'un appel a, au cours des auditions, en première instance ou en appel et sur demande, le droit de présenter des arguments en l'absence d'une autre partie. [6] The appellants filed two separate notices of motion in the Trial Division (DES-2-01 and DES-3-01) seeking to compel Mr. Strowbridge to answer the questions that had been put to him in the examination for discovery, as well as a number of other questions. [7] Counsel for the Crown filed a responding motion record and, at the same time, filed two affidavits for each of the two motions. The affidavits were sealed and marked "Confidential - to be seen only by Judge". Counsel for the Crown says that these four confidential affidavits were filed in support ofex parte submissions it proposed to make pursuant to subsection 38(6) of the Canada Evidence Act. [8] On December 24, 2001, Nadon J. denied the appellants' motion for further answers. That is the order that is now under appeal. [9] The Crown's motions seek the following: (a) an order under Rule 55 dispensing with the requirement to include the four confidential affidavits in the appeal book, (b) a direction under Rule 54 that the four confidential affidavits be "examined in the Court vault" by the judges hearing this appeal, (c) a direction under Rule 54 that reference to the four confidential affidavits may be made by counsel for the Crown in ex parte representations to the judges hearing this appeal pursuant to subsection 38(6) of the Canada Evidence Act, (d) an order under Rule 75 amending items 14 and 15 of the agreement as to the contents of the appeal book by replacing the words "a sealed confidential affidavit" with the words "two sealed confidential affidavits". [10] The appellants oppose the Crown's motions. It is submitted for the appellants that the four confidential affidavits were not properly before Nadon J. because they were not in the motion record filed by the Crown and were not referred to in the Crown's written submissions. Counsel for the appellants also argues that the authority in subsection 38(6) to receive ex parte submissions does not include the authority to consider evidence that is presented ex parte. I note as well there is a dispute as to whether counsel for the appellants knew that counsel for the Crown had filed these four confidential affidavits and intended to refer to them during ex parte submissions to Nadon J. These points may be relevant in the appeal of the decision of Nadon J., but in my view, they are not relevant to the present motions. [11] The material before me establishes that Nadon J. permitted counsel for the Crown to make ex parte representations pursuant to subsection 38(6) of the Canada Evidence Act. However, I cannot determine with certainty whether Nadon J. referred to the four confidential affidavits during the hearing or during his deliberations. His reasons for decision refer to the Certificate of Brian Buckley dated April 10, 2001, but not to any of the four confidential affidavits. The affidavit of Kathleen McManus sworn on March 20, 2002 indicates that she was present throughout the ex parte submissions to Nadon J., but it does not say whether any of the four confidential affidavits were referred to in the ex parte submissions. [12] There is an agreement of the parties as to the contents of the appeal book. It includes the following items: 14. A sealed confidential Affidavit filed by the Respondent in Court File No. DES-2-01 for the Judge's eyes only in support of ex parte representations under s. 38(b) of the Canada Evidence Act. 15. A sealed confidential Affidavit filed by the Respondent in Court File No. DES-3-01 for the Judge's eyes only in support of ex parte representations under s. 38(b) of the Canada Evidence Act. [13] The Crown's material indicates, and I accept, that each of these entries should refer to "two sealed confidential affidavits" rather than "a sealed confidential affidavit". The Crown's material also indicates, and I accept, that items 14 and 15 of the agreement as to the contents of the appeal book were included in that agreement at the insistence of counsel for the Crown. Counsel for the appellants signed that agreement but reserved the right to argue that Nadon J. did not have the authority to consider those affidavits. [14] In the circumstances, I will assume for the purposes of the present motions that all four confidential affidavits were before Nadon J. when he rendered the decision under appeal. It follows that they should be included in the appeal book if they are required to dispose of the issues on appeal (Rule 343(2)). [15] I will also assume, for purposes of the present motions, that the four confidential affidavits may be required to dispose of the issues on appeal. The basis for that conclusion is thin. It consists of paragraph 89 of the Crown's memorandum of fact and law, filed April 3, 2002, which reads as follows: 89. The relationship between the uncontested documentary privilege claim based on Mr. Buckley's Certificate and the disputed privilege claim with respect to the oral questions was a topic of ex parte submissions in the Court below and will also be addressed on an ex parte basis in this Court. [16] Against this background, I will determine the Crown's motions. [17] I will deny the motion for an order dispensing with the requirement to include the four confidential affidavits in the appeal book. It is more appropriate, in my view, to make an order that the four confidential affidavits may be included in a separate volume or volumes of the appeal book. These volumes are to be prepared by the Crown and designated "Supplementary Appeal Book - Confidential Affidavits". They need not be served on the appellants. They are to be marked as confidential and sealed pursuant to Rule 151 and 152. I will also make an order under Rule 152(2) that unless otherwise ordered by the Court, access to the confidential material is to be denied to everyone except counsel for the Crown. A new deadline will be set for the filing of the appeal books. [18] I will deny the motion for a direction under Rule 54 that the confidential affidavits be "examined in the Court vault" by the judges hearing this appeal. This motion is based on a misunderstanding of this Court's practice with respect to confidential material. Where confidential material is filed in relation to an appeal, its security is safeguarded by Registry staff. The judges assigned to hear the appeal are told that confidential material has been filed. If the judges wish to refer to the confidential material prior to the hearing or during their deliberations, they may ask to see it. They do not go into a vault to read it. Rather, it is delivered to them with the seals intact. Confidential material is also brought to the hearing in case it is referred to in argument. [19] I will defer to the panel hearing the appeal the motion for a direction under Rule 54 that, at the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the Crown may refer to the confidential affidavits in ex parte representations pursuant to subsection 38(6) of the Canada Evidence Act. [20] I will grant the motion for an order under Rule 75 amending items 14 and 15 of the agreement as to the contents of the appeal book by replacing the words "a sealed confidential affidavit" with the words "two sealed confidential affidavits". [21] Costs of these motions will be costs in the cause. "K. Sharlow" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD COURT FILE NO.: A-3-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSE PEREIRA E. HIJOS S.A. et al. v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA NOTICE OF MOTION DISPOSED ON IN WRITING REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT: Sharlow, J.A. DATED: MAY 1, 2002 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. John E. Sinnott, Q.C. FOR APPELLANT Mr. Michael Donovan FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lewis, Sinnott, Shortall, Hurley FOR APPELLANT St. John's, Newfoundland Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada