Lavigne v. Canada Post Corporation
- Citation
- 2004 FC 350
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 8 March 2004
- Posture
- Action Under Federal Court Act Involving Privacy Act, Charter and Collective Agreement Issues / Assessment of Costs After Statement of Claim Struck and Dismissal of Appeals
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 8 March 2004
- Posture
- Action Under Federal Court Act Involving Privacy Act, Charter and Collective Agreement Issues / Assessment of Costs After Statement of Claim Struck and Dismissal of Appeals
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's statement of claim; the Prothonotary's order striking the claim was properly maintained on appeal and the defendant was entitled to recover taxed costs and disbursements as assessed.
Court disposition
Statement of claim struck for lack of Federal Court jurisdiction; appeal dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.
Orders
- Statement of claim struck out with costs for the defendant
- Defendant's costs in the Federal Court taxed and allowed in the amount of 1025.75 CAD
- Respondent's bill in the Federal Court of Appeal assessed and allowed as submitted in the amount of 1649.65 CAD
- Expenses of 35.75 CAD allowed as claimed
- Assessment conducted in writing without personal appearance of parties
02
Material facts
Parties
Robert Lavigne
PlaintiffCanada Post Corporation
Defendant Counsel: Jodoin SanterreAmounts and remedies
- Federal Court Taxed Costs Allowed: CAD 1,025.75
- Federal Court of Appeal Respondent Bill Allowed: CAD 1,649.65
- Expenses Allowed: CAD 35.75
03
Procedural history
Posture
Action Under Federal Court Act Involving Privacy Act, Charter and Collective Agreement Issues / Assessment of Costs After Statement of Claim Struck and Dismissal of Appeals
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims under the Privacy Act, Charter s.15 and challenges to the collective agreement
- 02
Whether parts of the collective agreement contravened Charter s.15 and were illegal
- 03
Whether costs should be allowed to the defendant for the motion to strike and on appeal
- 04
Appropriate items and quantum of taxable costs and disbursements
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff sought to proceed with claims alleging contraventions of the Privacy Act and Charter s.15 and challenged parts of the collective agreement as age discriminatory, asserting the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear those claims.
- Respondent
- Defendant moved to strike the statement of claim for lack of Federal Court jurisdiction, opposed the substantive claims, sought dismissal and recovery of costs for the motion and subsequent appeals, and itemized taxable fees and disbursements.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Court Act ss.17,48
Federal Court jurisdiction is governed by the Federal Court Act and the Court must dismiss actions outside its statutory jurisdiction
- 02
Privacy Act s.7 and s.29(1)(a)
The Privacy Act provides statutory remedies for breaches of privacy subject to the Court's jurisdictional limits
- 03
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.15 and collective agreement law
Challenges to collective agreement provisions raising Charter s.15 issues require appropriate jurisdictional basis before the Federal Court will adjudicate
- 04
Federal Court Rules 1998 and practice on taxation of costs
Costs are taxable according to the Federal Court Rules and standard items are disallowed where not applicable (e.g., trial items where no trial)
- 05
Federal Court Rules 1998, Rule 223
Discovery items are recoverable only when discovery under the rules took place
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's statement of claim; the Prothonotary's order striking the claim was properly maintained on appeal and the defendant was entitled to recover taxed costs and disbursements as assessed.
Obiter and limits
- Items 13 and 14 in the tariff compensate trial-related services and are not recoverable where no trial occurred
- No discovery under Rule 223 took place, so related costs claimed under the discovery item were denied
- Assessment proceeded without personal appearances and the plaintiff filed no written representations
Court disposition
Statement of claim struck for lack of Federal Court jurisdiction; appeal dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.
- Statement of claim struck out with costs for the defendant
- Defendant's costs in the Federal Court taxed and allowed in the amount of 1025.75 CAD
- Respondent's bill in the Federal Court of Appeal assessed and allowed as submitted in the amount of 1649.65 CAD
- Expenses of 35.75 CAD allowed as claimed
- Assessment conducted in writing without personal appearance of parties
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 8 March 2004
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 8 March 2004
Lavigne v. Canada Post Corporation Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-03-08 Neutral citation 2004 FC 350 File numbers T-872-02 Decision Content Date: 20040308 Docket: T-872-02 Citation: 2004 FC 350 In the Matter of an action pursuant to s. 17(1), (2)(b) & 48 of the Federal Court Act, arising from a complaint pursuant to s. 29(1)(a) of the Privacy Act., R.S., 1985, c. P-21, against Canada Post Corporation for contravening s. 7 of the Privacy Act; In the Matter of an action pursuant to s. 17(1), (2)(b) & 48 of the Federal Court Act arising from the illegality of parts of the Collective Agreement signed by Canada Post Corporation on February 28, 2000, contravening article 5.01 regarding the age discrimination provisions, of said Collective Agreement; In the Matter of an action pursuant to s. 17(1), (2)(b) & 48 of the Federal Court Act arising from the illegal of parts of the Collective Agreement signed by Canada Post Corporation on February 28, 2000, contravening s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; In the Matter of an action pursuant to s. 17(1), 17(2)(d) & 48 of the Federal Court Act arising from the contravening s. 7 of the Privacy Act by Canada Post Corporation and therefore contravening sections 3(a) & 10 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 21, by Canada Post Corporation; BETWEEN:
ROBERT LAVIGNE Plaintiff and
CANADA POST CORPORATION Defendant ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER [1] On August 14, 2002, Mr. Richard Morneau, Prothonotary, ordered that the Plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out with costs on the basis that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this action. In appeal, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer maintained the Prothonotary's order. On June 3, 2003, the Court of Appeal dismissed with costs the appeal of the Federal Court judge's decision. The assessment of costs proceeded without the personal appearance of the parties. As of this date, Mr. Robert Lavigne has not filed any written representations. [2] The Defendant's fees for the preparation and hearing of its motion to strike the Plaintiff's action are allowed as follows: 5 units (item 5) and 2 units X 2 hours (item 6). Items 13 and 14 are designed to compensate services rendered in regard to trials. The request under item 7 is denied since no discovery of documents pursuant to Rule 223 of the Federal Court Rules 1998 took place. The various expenses in the amount of $ 35.75 are allowed as claimed. The Defendant's costs incurred in this file are taxed and allowed in the amount of $ 1,025.75. [3] In the Federal Court of Appeal, the Respondent's bill is assessed as submitted in the amount of $ 1,649.65. A copy of these reasons is placed in file A-596-02. DATED AT MONTREAL, THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2004. Signed: « Michelle Lamy » MICHELLE LAMY
ASSESSMENT OFFICER
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE NO.: T-872-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: BETWEEN:
ROBERT LAVIGNE Plaintiff and
CANADA POST CORPORATION Defendant
ASSESSMENT IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES PLACE OF TAXATION: Montreal, Quebec ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS BY: MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER DATE OF REASONS: MARCH 8, 2004 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jodoin Santerre Montreal, Quebec for the Defendant
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.