FOREIGN TRADE |
Vicrossano Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-572-01
2002 FCT 1999, Gibson J.
19/11/02
14 pp.
Judicial review of Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's decision fixing applicant's quota for export of peanut butter, for 2001 quota year, at 454,652 kilograms--In 1999, based upon a revised allocation formula, applicant's quota allocation reduced by 450,000 kilograms to 345,726 kilograms--Reduction of applicant's quota corresponded exactly to amount of quota transferred to other producers in 1998--Minister operating peanut butter export quota program for exports to United States under authority of Export and Import Permits Act, s. 7--Under s. 7, Minister has extensive discretion in issuing export permits and allocation of quota underlying such permits--Applicant urged promissory estoppel should work against Minister-- Regarding promissory estoppel, principles well settled in Mount Sinai Hospital Center v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281--Party relying on doctrine must establish other party has (i) by words or conduct, made promise or assurance; (ii) intended to affect legal relationship; (iii) representee must establish that, in reliance on representation; (iv) acteùd on it or in some way changed position--In present case, applicant has not met particular onus--President of applicant may well have acted to applicant's detriment in not pursuing judicial review of 1999 quota allocation, but ground insufficient to invoke promissory estoppel--Applicant argued decision under review flew in face of applicant's legitimate expectations-- Applicant's entitlement to rely on doctrine of legitimate expectations unfounded--First, applicant cannot invoke doctrine to support procedural undertaking--Secondly, evidence before Court falling short of establishing applicant had reasonable grounds supporting legitimate expectation-- One last argument of applicant regarding contravention by Minister of Official Languages Act (OLA)--OLA, s. 58 providing for scheme for registering complaints of alleged infringements of OLA and for conduct of investigations-- S. 77(1) providing for recourse before Court by any person making complaint in respect of certain rights or duties under OLA--In present case, no complaint made to Commissioner of Official Languages--In absence of such complaint, recourse not open to applicant--Applicant cannot initiate such complaint as element of applicant's application for judicial review--No evidence quota allocation based on finding of fact either perverse or capricious or made without regard to material available to Minister--Application for judicial review dismissed--Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-19, s. 7 (as am. by S.C. 1991, c. 28, s. 3; 1994, c. 47, s. 107; 95, c. 39, s. 172)--Official Languages Act, R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 31, ss. 58, 77(1).