Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil liability - Crown law - Crown liability - Administrative law - Judicial review - Whether action in damages against federal Crown can proceed in absence of Federal Court order declaring decision of federal board, commission or other tribunal to be unlawful or invalid.

In December 2001, the Respondents Olymel et al. (“Olymel”) operated hog and poultry slaughterhouses in Quebec. The respondents Dany Beauregard et al. (“the veterinarians”), who are employees of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (“the Agency”) and are represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (“the union”), are responsible for inspecting Olymel’s slaughterhouses. On December 17, 2001, the veterinarians, who had been without a collective agreement since September 2000, did not report for work. The Agency then ordered Olymel to stop production. Four days later, the Federal Court issued an interim interlocutory injunction ordering the union to stop using pressure tactics that interfered with the inspections required under the regulations in force. In January 2002, the Public Service Staff Relations Board of Canada concluded that the actions on December 17, 2001 constituted an illegal strike. In February 2002, the Agency decided that the meat from animals slaughtered for human consumption during the labour dispute would have to be destroyed or treated as unfit to eat.

In December 2004, Olymel instituted an action in damages against the union and the veterinarians. The union and the veterinarians then filed motions to institute proceedings in warranty against the Agency. They contended that the Agency had acted negligently in managing the situation resulting from the dispute of December 17, 2001. They also alleged that there was no causal link between the work stoppage and the damage suffered by Olymel. That damage was rather the result of the Agency’s wrongful decisions to interrupt the slaughter and then order the destruction of the slaughtered animals. The Agency then filed motions to dismiss the actions in warranty. The Superior Court dismissed those motions. It held that the actions in warranty appeared to be related to the principal action and established a prima facie possibility of solidary liability with the Agency. Furthermore, an otherwise valid decision of the Agency could nevertheless constitute a civil fault and form the basis of an action in damages in the Superior Court against a federal board, commission or other tribunal. Finally, the Agency’s status as the veterinarians’ principal was not in doubt. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.