Tucker v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)
The Minister's requirement that the appellant use only one licence at a time was a bona fide exercise of discretion under s.7 of the Fisheries Act for the purpose of managing and conserving the fishery; it was not made in bad faith, was within the scope of the statutory purpose and was not patently unreasonable;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2001 FCA 384
- Parties
- Appellant: Oswan Tucker; Appellant: Tucker & Son Ltd.; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 7 December 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review (administrative Law) Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Ministerial Discretion, Judicial Review, Standard of Review, Section 7 Fisheries Act, Patently Unreasonable, Damages Claim
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Oswan Tucker
Appellant
Tucker & Son Ltd.
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Law) Appeal / Federal Court of Appeal Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Minister lawfully exercised discretion under s.7 of the Fisheries Act to require the appellant to use either his inshore or offshore licence but not both simultaneously
- 2 Whether the Minister's decision was made in bad faith or for an improper purpose
- 3 Whether the decision was patently unreasonable (clearly irrational)
Ratio Decidendi
The Minister's requirement that the appellant use only one licence at a time was a bona fide exercise of discretion under s.7 of the Fisheries Act for the purpose of managing and conserving the fishery; it was not made in bad faith, was within the scope of the statutory purpose and was not patently unreasonable; therefore the appeal fails and the decision cannot support an action in damages.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Tucker v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-12-07 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 384 File numbers A-798-00 Decision Content Date: 20011207 Docket: A-798-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 384 CORAM: STRAYER, J.A. SHARLOW, J.A. MALONE, J.A. BETWEEN: OSWAN TUCKER AND TUCKER & SON LTD. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN as represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Respondent Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on December 7, 2001. Judgment delivered at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on December 7, 2001. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Malone, J.A. Date: 20011207 Docket: A-798-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 384 CORAM: STRAYER, J.A. SHARLOW, J.A. MALONE, J.A. BETWEEN: OSWAN TUCKER AND TUCKER & SON LTD. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN as represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick on December 7, 2001.) MALONE J.A. [1] We are all of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. [2] In this case, the Minister exercised his discretion under section 7 of the Fisheries Act to compel the appellant, Mr. Tucker, to utilize either his inshore licence or his offshore licence but not both at the same time. Following Carpenter Fishing Corporation v. The Queen, [1998] 2 F.C. 548 (FCA) and Maple Lodge Farms v. Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at 6-7, we acknowledge that the issue as to whether the means chosen by the Minister creates either good or bad policy is not to be decided by the Court. Rather, the Court should only concern itself with ensuring that the decision is made in good faith, falls within the broad purposes of the Act and is not patently unreasonable, which we take to mean clearly irrational. In the present case, we discern neither bad faith nor an improper purpose that would take the decision outside the scope of the Minister's statutory discretion. The record discloses that the Ministerial requirement that Mr. Tucker use only one, but not both of his licences, was made with the purpose of managing and conserving the fishery. That decision is within the scope of the Minister's section 7 discretion and is not patently unreasonable. It cannot therefore be the basis for an action in damages. [3] In our analysis, Rothstein J. came to the only rational conclusion available on the evidence. The appeal will be dismissed with costs. "B. Malone" J.A. Fredericton, New Brunswick December 7, 2001 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-798-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: OSWAN TUCKER AND TUCKER & SON LTD. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick DATE OF HEARING: December 7, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Malone J.A.. DATED: December 7, 2001 APPEARANCES: Keith S. Morgan. FOR THE APPELLANT Ginette Mazerolle FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Browne Fitzgerald Morgan FOR THE APPELLANT Churchill Park Law Offices P. O. Box 23135 Terrace on the Square St. John's, Newfoundland A1B 4J9 Department of Justice FOR THE RESPONDENT Halifax Regional Office Suite 1400, Duke Tower 5251 Duke Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1P3