[2016] 4 F.C.R. D-12
Federal Court Jurisdiction
Appeal from Federal Court (F.C.) order striking plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim against all defendants except Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada — Underlying action arising from Minister of National Revenue’s refusal to renew plaintiff Rainbow Tobacco G.P.’s federal tobacco manufacturing license for failure to comply with Regulations Respecting Excise Licences and Registrations, SOR/2003-115, s. 2(2)(b)(i), having insufficient financial resources to conduct its business in responsible manner pursuant to Regulations, s. 2(2)(c)(ii) — Canada arguing Federal Court not having jurisdiction to entertain claim against RCMP Commissioner, individual defendants because claim against them founded on principles of liability grounded in provincial law, only incidentally requiring application of federal law — Plaintiff Robbie Dickson status Indian within meaning of Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 — Plaintiffs alleging in amended statement of claim, inter alia, that Canada Revenue Agency individual defendants required to exercise reasonable diligence in tobacco licensing process, owing fiduciary duty to plaintiff Robbie Dickson as result of his alleged Aboriginal right to trade in tobacco with other First Nations people — F.C. finding plain, obvious that amended statement of claim could only be pursued in F.C. against Defendant Her Majesty the Queen — Whether plain, obvious F.C. lacking jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ claim against individual defendants — F.C. order wrong — F.C. incorporating new requirement in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd v. Miida Electronics Inc, et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 (ITO) test by adopting defendants’ written representations without further explanation — Consequently, motion to strike individual defendants from amended statement of claim having to be considered on de novo basis — First requirement of ITO test met — Issue thus whether body of federal law essential to disposition of case existing, nourishing statutory grant of jurisdiction, whether it may constitute “law of Canada” — Necessary to examine whether overall federal law playing primary role, i.e. whether plaintiffs’ claim against individual defendants “in pith and substance” based on federal law, whether rights arising under detailed federal statutory framework — Conduct of individual defendants not authorized by federal legislation under which purporting to act — Federal legislation providing sufficiently detailed framework to nourish F.C.’s jurisdiction, essential to outcome of case — Issuance of licence authorizing manufacture of tobacco products governed by Excise Act, 2001, S.C. 2002, c. 22, Regulations — Plaintiffs also relying on Indian Act, s. 87(1)(b) providing exemption from taxation — Determination of whether individual defendants liable for wrongfully refusing to renew plaintiffs’ licence ultimately depending on whether plaintiffs exempt from taxation pursuant to Indian Act — For this reason plaintiffs successfully demonstrating claim “in pith and substance” based on federal law — Excise Act, 2001, Indian Act federal legislation, clearly constituting “law of Canada” — Accordingly, not plain, obvious F.C. lacking jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ claim against individual defendants — Individual defendants re-added to style of cause — Appeal allowed.
Dickson v. Canada (T-2547-14, 2016 FC 836, Roussel J., judgment dated July 20, 2016, 25 pp.)