Source: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/jutras/crown-resp.html
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 00:21:17
Document Index: 648569724

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1', 'art. 21', 'art. 2', 'art. 22', 'art. 3', 'art. 3', 'art. 3', 'art. 64', 'art. 4', 'art. 12', 'art. 23', 'art. 5', 'art. 6', 'art. 24', 'art. 21', 'art. 2', 'art. 28', 'art. 22', 'art. 28', 'art. 23', 'art. 29', 'art. 23', 'art. 29', 'art. 24', 'art. 30', 'art. 25', 'art. 31', 'art. 26', 'art. 31', 'art. 27', 'art. 31', 'art. 28', 'art. 31', 'art. 29', 'art. 31', 'art. 30', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 31', 'art. 32', 'art. 31', 'art. 20', 'art. 34', 'art. 32', 'art. 35', 'art. 32', 'art. 36', 'art. 32', 'art. 78', 'art. 38']

Daniel Jutras*
I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1. Normative uniformity
A. Textual unity and normative uniformity
B. Textual duality and normative uniformity
2. Normative diversity
A. Textual unity and normative diversity
B. Textual duality and normative diversity
II. Crown Liability and Proceedings Act
The purpose of this article is to analyse the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act from a bilingual and bijural perspective. Before proceeding with this analysis, a few preliminary comments must be made in order to highlight certain observations that flow from it.
First, the question of the normative content of a federal statute must not be confused with that of its form. Professors Morel and Brisson have very clearly shown the extent and limits of the interaction between federal law and civil law in the context of the normative content.[1] That study makes it possible to draw a very general distinction between two different forms of interaction. In some cases, a federal statute presupposes normative diversity, because it relies on provincial law, which becomes complementary. In other cases, the federal statute distances itself from provincial law and derogates from it, so as to reach a certain normative uniformity, a Canada-wide harmonization of solutions. From this point of view, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act is a mixture of complementarity and dissociation: at times, it refers to the law applicable in each province; at other times, it makes provision for certain uniform rules governing the civil liability of the federal Crown. The analysis of this Act from a bijural perspective is thus complicated by this first observation: a good part of the normative diversity that flows from the Act is the result of a legislative policy that consists in subordination to provincial law, which varies from one province to the next. In the interpretation of section 13 of the Act, for example, the duality of systems intended by Parliament (by reference) must be distinguished from the duality that flows from the perhaps awkward use of concepts the parameters of which are not the same in civil law as in common law (biens meubles/personal property, biens immeubles/real property).
The second question, namely the form of federal statutes that interact with provincial law, is an essential element in the choice that must be made between textual unity (that is, a single term used in each language to express the norm) and textual duality (that is, a civil law term and a common law term used in each language to express the norm). While the goal of textual unity is to find a neutral term or expression that can make the norm equally accessible to both legal traditions, that of textual duality is to speak to each person in the "language" (of civil law or common law) with which he or she is familiar.[2]
Both these types of questions arise in the context of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, as they do for most federal statutes that involve some interaction with provincial law. The components of the analysis do not fit together in groups of identical pairs as might be thought (textual unity/normative uniformity; textual duality/normative diversity), as it is easy to foresee both the possibility of giving expression to a uniform legal system through four versions of the text (French, English, civil law and common law) and that of giving expression to normative diversity by using neutral terms in each language. It is this framework that I have selected to outline the observations that flow from this preliminary study of the Act.
This being said, before presentation of these observations in greater detail, it will be useful to restate the obvious: the intensity of the relationship between the text and the norm must not be exaggerated. The discussions that took place at the symposium of March 25, 1996, and during the day of work that followed are a good illustration of this. Beyond the commendable political and symbolic objective motivating the review of federal statutes, it would be incorrect to believe that the text and the norm are perfectly interrelated. It is clear, moreover, that the fact of amending legislation does not always result in a corresponding amendment to the norm. More specifically, it might be thought that the reading and interpretation of statutory provisions by jurists (judges and lawyers) also produce normative diversity and uniformity, regardless of the actual text of the enactment. First, normative diversity can arise when each person reads only his or her version while seeking solutions within his or her legal tradition, regardless of the intended uniformity of the text. Second, normative uniformity can arise when the practice of bijural interpretation in a single forum (the Federal Court, for example, or the contracting practices of the Department of Justice) leads to a harmonization beyond that provided for in the legislation and even beyond what Parliament intended.
The harmonization of substantive solutions within federal law interacting with provincial law can be expressed in a single text in both English and French. Drafters can also strive for harmonization by stating the same idea in each legal tradition in a text with two voices for each language.
The first difficulty, from this perspective, is to render the same idea in both languages. Beyond any difficulty engendered by interaction between the two legal traditions, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act suffers from certain weaknesses in translation. In particular, one can point to the disparity between the content of the two versions of section 13 and the terminological waltz involving the terms "private person" , "personne physique" , "particulier" , "person" , and "subject" (s. 3) and the terms "fait générateur" and "cause of action" (ss. 12 and 22). Moreover, the search for a single, but appro­priate, term quickly leads to problems relating to bijuralism. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which was quite obviously first drafted in English and on the basis of the common law, presents many examples of these problems.
- The first type of problem involves terms that have no content in one of the two legal traditions, but which are nonetheless inserted into the Act in both languages. Here, the translation reflects only one legal tradition. This is the case, inter alia, with the terms "dommages-intérêts spéciaux/special damages" (s. 31(3)), "particulier/private person" (s. 5), "real property" and "personal property" (s. 13), and "ordonnance d'exécution" (s. 22(1)), which have no content in the civil law tradition.
- The second type of problem arises when a term exists in both legal traditions, but the meaning varies from one tradition to the other. For example, the Act contains the terms "représentant/representative" (ss. 10 and 11), "occupation" (ss. 3 and 13), "possession" (s. 3) and "detention" (s. 14), which do not have the same meaning in civil law as in common law. An interesting aspect of this problem is demonstrated by the statutory definition of "préposé/servant" (s. 2), in which the semantic content of words that are more or less equivalent is rendered heterogeneous by a perhaps unnecessary effort to obtain legislative symmetry.
- The third type of problem is that of "semi-bijural" ; translation, which relies on a single term in each language but associates each language with a legal tradition. This occurs with "privilège" and "lien" (s. 14), with "organisme mandataire de la couronne" and "agency of the Crown" (s. 9), and with "bien meuble" and "personal property" or "bien immeuble" and "real property" (s. 13).
- The final type of problem relating to textual unity is the attempt to find a neutral term that can convey the same normative content in both legal traditions. Some terms are neutral in that a given concept has exactly the same content, and uses the same terminology in both the civil law and the common law. One example of this is the pair "préposé/servant" (at least under the Civil Code of Lower Canada). However, it is also possible to find terms that do not have specific roots in either legal tradition and can convey a single concept: one example of this is "fait préjudiciable", which was used in the previous version of the Act but was unfortunately translated as "tort".
Considering its history and the fact that it is based on the common law, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act contains very few cases of textual duality, that is, the use of terms connected with both legal traditions in each language. Those that are included essentially support the normative diversity of the Act.
Two examples of this phenomenon come to mind. To begin with, the Act makes an express reference to provincial law, and thus to the normative diversity that results therefrom. This is the case, inter alia, with interest (s. 31), in respect of which a single text in both languages refers to provincial law. In other cases, normative diversity results from a single text, but on the basis of the presumed intention of Parliament. Thus, the concepts of "dommage/damage" (ss. 4 and 9) have very different meanings in civil law and common law even though expressed in the same terms. However, it might be thought that the reference made by Parliament presupposes that the Act is to be applied differently from one province to another. The same reasoning applies to the meaning of "duty attaching to the . . . occupation . . . of property/devoirs liés à . . . l'occupation . . . de biens" (s. 3), which varies not only between civil law and common law, but also from one common law province to another.[3]
Considering the importance of the complementarity of provincial law in the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, particular attention must be paid to the identification of terms (or doublets of terms, to be more precise) that will ensure that both versions refer to the same notions despite the diversity of the legal systems to which they are referring. Sections 3 and 13 are interesting in this regard. The definition of "délit civil/tort" (s. 2) will also be considered from this perspective. As this definition is the basis for the reference in section 3, it can be said to have two very prominent flaws.
The first of these flaws relates to the fact that the doublet is not symmetrical in the two languages. Whereas the English version includes the expression "delict and quasi-delict" , the French version defines "délit civil" in civil law terms. However, this first flaw is explained in part by the second: the single term, which is defined using doublets, is itself not neutral. To avoid this problem, it would be preferable to use a single neutral term (such as "acte ou fait préjudiciable/damaging event" ) and to define it using a truly symmetrical doublet: "tort, délit ou quasi-délit" / "tort, delict or quasi-delict" .
This then is a broad outline of the main observations that flow from an examination of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. A more detailed survey can be found in the discussions relating to the Act itself, which are appended to these brief preliminary comments. I have taken Gaspard Côté's enlightening comments[4] into account in preparing this discus­sion. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, the commentary touches in so far as possible upon aspects of the analysis of this Act that were not dealt with in detail in Côté's paper. The two papers must therefore be read together. Moreover, even though such divisions are always somewhat artificial, the comments are divided into three subjects for ease of consultation. Thus, there are comments on bilingualism (translation difficulties in French or in English), bijuralism (translation difficulties in civil law and common law) and the new civil law (difficulties flowing from the coming into force of the new Civil Code of Québec).[5]
CHAPITRE C-50
CHAPTER C-50
Loi relative à la responsabilité civile de l'État et aux procédures applicables en matière de contentieux administratif
1. Loi sur la responsabilité civile de l'État et le contentieux administratif.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 1; 1990, ch. 8, art. 21.
An Act respecting the liability of the Crown and proceedings by or against the Crown
1. This Act may be cited as the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 1; 1990, c. 8, s. 21
Liability = responsabilité civile
In the civil law, the term "responsabilité civile" is translated as "civil liability" and covers both contractual civil liability and extracontractual civil liability. It is probably not necessary to amend the English title to reflect this practice. Likewise, the term "contentieux administratif" has a connotation in French that is broader than "crown proceedings", since it also covers proceedings connected with the judicial review of administrative decisions. Moreover, the word "proceedings" means actions, as opposed to "procédures applicables" [applicable procedures]. Once again, this is not an inconsequential difference. Finally, the words "État" in French and "Crown" in English do not convey the same reality.[6] This last minor problem has already been mentioned by Professors Kasirer and Brierley in their study on the Federal Real Property Act.[7]
2 «délit civil» "tort"
«délit civil» Délit ou quasi-délit.
2 «État» "Crown"
«État» Sa Majesté du chef du Canada.
2 «navire de l'État» "Crown ship"
«navire de l'État» Navire au sens de l'article 673 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada et dont l'État a la propriété ou la possession exclusive.
2 «préposés» "servant"
«préposés» Sont assimilés aux préposés les mandataires. La présente définition exclut les personnes nommées ou engagées sous le régime d'une ordonnance du territoire du Yukon ou des Territoires du Nord-Ouest.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 2; 1990, ch. 8, art. 22.
2 "Crown" «État»
"Crown" means Her Majesty in right of Canada;
2 "Crown ship" «navire...»
"Crown ship" means a ship, as defined in section 673 of the Canada Shipping Act, that is owned by or is in the exclusive possession of the Crown;
2 "servant" «préposés»
"servant" includes agent, but does not include any person appointed or employed by or under the authority of an ordinance of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories;
2 "tort" «délit...»
"tort" includes delict and quasi-delict.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 2; 1990, c. 8, s. 22
The French version of the definition of "navire de l'État" [Crown ship] could be interpreted as though the word "exclusive" qualified both "possession" and "propriété" [ownership]; this interpretation cannot be retained in light of the English version. The ambiguity could be significant, as it would then be necessary to attribute a meaning to the concept of "propriété exclusive".
Tort = délit civil
The definition in doublet form is not symmetrical, as the English version adds to the normal meaning of "tort" by including "delict and quasi-delict", whereas the French version suggests that "délit civil" is the same thing as "délit ou quasi-délit".
Possession = possession
The word "possession" has a technical meaning in the civil law (it is the actual exercise of a real right that a person claims to hold). This is not necessarily the meaning Parliament intended to give this word in the Act. Should it instead be understood to mean the actual control of the thing?
Servant = préposés
Although the seventh paragraph of article 1054 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada provided that masters and employers were responsible for the fault of their "domestiques et ouvriers" [servants and workmen], the "préposé" concept has been known to Quebec commentators and courts for a long time. As for article 1463 of the Civil Code of Québec, it presupposes that the "préposé" concept is identical to that of "servants and agents". This new translation, which is different from that used in the Civil Code of Lower Canada ("servants and workmen"), introduces a neologism into the English civil law terminology of Quebec. The Civil Code of Lower Canada did contain the term "agent" (arts. 1735 et seq.), but it had a very different meaning. In any event, the expression "servants and agents" should probably be consi­dered the equivalent of the word "préposé" in the new Civil Code, whereas at common law the concepts of "servant" and "agent" are quite distinct.[8] This difference between the two legal traditions leads to an asymmetrical definition of "préposé/ servant" in the Act, because the inclusion of "mandataires" in the definition of "préposés" (in the French version but not in the English version) adds to this latter concept. Does this necessarily mean that Parliament intended the Crown to be liable for a "mandataire" who is not its "préposé"? The question is somewhat more acute now due to the changes that flow from the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec (see below). It should also be noted that the civil law equivalent in English for "mandataire" is "mandatary".
New civil law
Délit ou quasi-délit
This expression and its English equivalent [delict and quasi-delict] have disappeared from the new Civil Code. It is not absolutely necessary to adapt the Act to the new Quebec civil law terminology, as the terms "délit" and "quasi-délit" have well-known meanings in the civil law. However, in addition to the possibility that some may find that the utilization of terms no longer being used in Quebec law is inelegant, there is still the danger that some may conclude from the continued use of these terms in the Act that the reference to Quebec law is not dynamic and does not include the new Quebec law.[9] As for deciding which term or expression should be used to replace these words if necessary, it would not necessarily be wise to follow the example of the Quebec legislature, which in section 423 of the Act respecting the implementation of the reform of the Civil Code,[10] suggests using the words "faute au sens de la responsabilité civile extracontractuelle/fault in the context of extra-contractual civil liability". Under the former Civil Code, "délits ou quasi-délits" covered types of extracontractual civil liability based on fault as well as those that could arise in the absence of fault. Be that as it may, paragraph 3(a) has generally been interpreted as requiring proof of the servant's fault (here understood in a narrow sense analogous to the "negligence" of common law).[11] It is important to be precise, because in common law, liability in tort can include certain types of no-fault liability. Assuming that what is desired in this respect is normative uniformity and that the Crown can be held liable for its servant's acts even in the absence of obvious fault on the servant's part, the expression "fait générateur de responsabilité civile extracontractuelle" [act attracting extracontractual civil liability] would be more appropriate.
Préposés et mandataires
The inclusion of "mandataires" [mandataries] in the definition of "préposés" raises another problem: are mandators liable for mandataries who are not their "préposés"? It is possible for a civil law mandatary to have a freedom of action that a "préposé" would not have. Under the former Civil Code, mandators were liable for the fault of their mandataries pursuant to article 1731 C.C.L.C. The ambiguity of this provision gave rise to some controversy. The new Code resolves the controversy: it draws a clear distinction between a mandatary who is equivalent to a «préposé», for whose acts the mandator is liable irrespective of fault (under article 1463 C.C.Q.), and a mandatary who is not the mandator's "préposé", for whose fault the mandator is liable only if unable to rebut the presumption of fault provided for in article 2164 C.C.Q. From the perspective of an open or dynamic reference to Quebec's jus commune, the extent to which this change affects the scope of the federal Crown's liability in Quebec will have to be determined.
Délits civils et sauvetages civils
Tort and Civil Salvage
3 Responsabilité civile délictuelle
3. En matière de responsabilité civile délictuelle, l'État est assimilé à une personne physique, majeure et capable, pour :
a) les délits civils commis par ses préposés;
b) les manquements aux obligations liées à la propriété, à l'occupation, à la possession ou à la garde de biens.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 3.
3 Liability in tort
3. The Crown is liable in tort for the damages for which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be liable
(b) in respect of a breach of duty attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 3
Private person = personne physique
The term "personne physique" is usually translated as "natural person". "Private person" does not have a clear meaning in the civil law and might lead to confusion with the concept of a "legal person established for a private interest" referred to in the Civil Code of Québec. This problem has already been pointed out by Professors Brierley and Kasirer in relation to the Federal Real Property Act.[12] Any revision of the Act in this respect must be done very carefully in light of the importance of consistently using the same expressions in all federal statutes. The problem is especially acute here, since the translation of "private person" varies from section to section within the Act ("personne physique" in sections 3 and 4, and "particulier" in sections 5 and 21; the term "particulier" is itself translated as "persons" in sections 22 and 30, and as "subject" in sections 31, 31.1, 32 and 34 of the Act).
The Crown is liable in tort for the damages... = en matière de responsabilité civile délictuelle, l'État est assimilé...
The words "for the damages" affect the scope of the relief that can be sought from the Crown, restricting it to compensation (the payment of damages). The French version is broader, as it does not limit the relief normally available for delictual liability, including specific performance of the obligation. However, this disparity is of little consequence, since section 22 of the Act makes it impossible to obtain an order for specific performance against the Crown. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the possibility of awarding punitive damages pursuant to section 3, as was done in Peeters v. Canada (1993), 108 D.L.R. (4th) 471, would probably be more restricted in the civil law.
Breach of duty = manquement aux obligations
The expression "manquement aux obligations" is a bit awkward from a civil law point of view. The courts interpreted the original wording of the 1953 Act, which read "un manquement au devoir afférent à la propriété ... ", quite narrowly, as Côté has mentioned in his analysis.[13] The use of the singular in the French version led the Supreme Court of Canada to exempt the federal Crown from the application of a provincial statute that imposed certain specific duties that were not of general application.[14] It has been suggested that this decision should be read as limiting the reference to the provincial jus commune, which would make it necessary to distinguish obligations that flow from the jus commune from those that flow from specific rules.[15] Moreover, the Federal Court relied on the former wording to hold that article 1055 C.C.L.C. did not apply to the federal Crown. In Pratte J.'s view, the possibility that an owner would be responsible under article 1055 for the fault of another conflicted with the idea of a "duty" within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(b) [now 3(b)] that is directly imposed on the owner and would attract liability if breached.[16]
Both of these very narrow interpretations, which have the effect of rejecting the complementarity of Quebec civil law to a certain point, are possibly less acceptable today in light of the new French wording, which refers to "obligations" in the plural. This term is more consistent with the liability to reparation for injury that flows from article 1466 C.C.Q. Nonetheless, the English version still contains the term "duty", the scope of which is potentially narrower, at least in the civil law.
One possible solution to this problem would be to draft section 3 in the form of a doublet with paragraphs. In my opinion, if this solution were accepted, it should be used only for paragraph (b) and should be in as simple a form as possible. It could refer in clear language to "la responsabilité pour le préjudice causé par le fait des biens que l'État a sous sa garde ou dont elle est propriétaire, ou par la faute de l'État à l'un ou l'autre de ces titres" [liability for injury resulting from the act of property over which it has control or of which it is the owner, or from the fault of the Crown in such capacity]. Moreover, this wording appears to me to be consistent with the common law, and could probably be translated in bijural language.
Ownership, occupation, possession, or control of property = propriété, occupation, possession, garde de biens
This list was clearly first drafted from a common law perspective, and it is an exact copy of the English and provincial legislation in this area.[17] It is therefore problematic from a civil law point of view. The concepts of "occupation" and "possession" in particular have a technical meaning in the civil law that is incongruous in the context of civil liability. However, this incongruity does not seem to have caused any problems of interpretation for the courts.[18] Moreover, "control of property" does not necessarily convey the same concept as "garde de biens". In the civil law, the term "care" (1054(1) C.C.L.C.) or "custody" (1465 C.C.Q.) is usually used to convey this reality.
Tort committed by a servant of the Crown = délits civils commis par ses préposés
Gaspard Côté has raised the possibility of adding the words "dans l'exécution de ses fonctions" [in the performance of the duties of his office] here to ensure the consistency of the reference with provincial law.[19] This is a valid observation, but it is certainly not imperative that this amendment be made. Since the Crown is likened to a private person in this context, there is no risk that it will be found liable for the fault of its "servants" outside the normal duties of their offices as long as provincial law makes this condition a factor in an employer's liability. Moreover, it should be noted that contrary to the Civil Code of Lower Canada, article 1463 C.C.Q. makes the fault of the "agent or servant" an essential condition of a principal's liability. Consequently, it might be thought that a master is not liable when his or her "servant" is personally liable in the absence of fault. The term "délit civil", as defined in the Act, is broader than the concept of extra­contractual fault and would make it possible to hold the Crown liable toward third parties where its "servants" are personally liable even in the absence of fault. Finally, article 1464 C.C.Q. probably does not apply directly to the federal Crown if its effect is to extend its liability beyond the scope set out in the Act (which is open to question).
Reference in the former law to "responsabilité civile délictuelle" [delictual liability] was generally interpreted liberally as including quasi-delictual liability (see the title of the book by Jean-Louis Baudouin); technically, however, the expression covers only liability flowing from an intentional act. In light of the change in terminology in the Civil Code of Québec, the term "responsabilité extracontractuelle" [extracontractual liability] would probably be more appropriate. Whichever term is used, they both cover non-contractual liability in the broad sense, that is, liability based on fault and liability based on particular systems of presumption and of strict liability.
4 Véhicules automobiles
4. L'État est également assimilé à une personne physique, majeure et capable, pour ce qui est de sa responsabilité à l'égard des dommages que cause à autrui, sur une voie publique, un véhicule automobile lui appartenant.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 3
4 Motor vehicles
4. The Crown is liable for the damage sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle, owned by the Crown, on a highway, for which the Crown would be liable if it were a private person of full age and capacity.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 3.
See discussion under section 3.
Damage = dommages
The word "dommages" in the plural is ambiguous in the civil law, as it also is at common law: it can refer either to an injury or to damages, that is, an amount paid to a victim as compensation for an injury. Although this ambiguity is not serious in the context of section 4, it would be preferable to remove it. The best solution would be to use the word "dommage/damage" in the singular. Use of the word "préjudice/ injury" would have certain consequences from a common law point of view.
Damage sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle = dommages causés par un véhicule automobile
The French version places no restrictions on the nature of the injury sustained, which may be material, moral or bodily, to use the categories found in the Civil Code of Québec. The English version may be narrower in that it can be interpreted as restricting the relief available to that for personal injury, that is, bodily injury.
Gaspard Côté has already pointed out the problems resulting from the decision of the Exchequer Court in Lamoureux v. R., [1964] Ex.C.R. 641.[20] The validity of this decision may once again be questioned in light of Schmitz v. R., [1974] 2 F.C. 898, Stuart v. Canada, [1989] 2 F.C. 3, and in particular R. v. Nord-Deutsche Versichersungs-Gesellschaft, [1971] S.C.R. 849. Nevertheless, Côté is right to suggest that section 4 should be amended in order to remove all ambiguity as to the open nature of the reference contained in this section.
5(1) Sauvetage civil
5. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le droit régissant le sauvetage civil de personnes ou de biens s'applique, à l'exception des articles 453 à 456, 459 à 463 et 465 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada, aux services de sauvetage effectués pour prêter assistance à des navires ou aéronefs de l'État, ou aux personnes se trouvant à leur bord, ou pour sauver les cargaisons ou les accessoires de ces navires ou aéronefs, l'État étant assimilé à un particulier.
5(1) Civil salvage
5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the law relating to civil salvage, whether of life or property (except sections 453 to 456, 459 to 463 and 465 of the Canada Shipping Act), applies in relation to salvage services rendered in assisting any Crown ship or aircraft, or in saving life therefrom, or in saving any cargo or apparel belonging to the Crown, in the same manner as if the ship, aircraft, cargo or apparel belonged to a private person.
5(2) Juridiction compétente
(2) Les réclamations exercées contre l'État au titre du paragraphe (1) sont présentées à un juge de la Cour fédérale pour instruction et décision.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 3; S.R., ch. 10 (2e suppl.), art. 64.
5(2) Claims in Federal Court
(2) All claims against the Crown under subsection (1) shall be heard and determined by a judge of the Federal Court.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 3; R.S., c. 10 (2nd Supp.), s. 64.
Private person = particulier
See discussion under section 3. It should be noted that "private person" has been translated here as "particulier" rather than "personne physique".
6(1) Limitation de la responsabilité
6. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les articles 572 et 574 à 582 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada s'appliquent à l'État afin de limiter sa responsabilité et les délais dans les poursuites exercées contre lui
6(1) Limitation of liability and time for proceedings
6. (1) Subject to subsection (2), sections 572 and 574 to 582 of the Canada Shipping Act apply for the purpose of limiting the liability of, and certain time periods respecting proceedings against, the Crown in respect of Crown ships.
6(2) Détermination du tonnage d'un navire
(2) Lorsque, dans le cadre d'instances régies par la présente loi, il faut déterminer la jauge d'un navire qui n'a pas de jauge au registre au sens de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada, l'opération se fait conformément à l'article 94 de cette loi.
6(2) Ascertaining tonnage of ship
(2) Where, for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act, it is necessary to ascertain the tonnage of a ship that has no register tonnage within the meaning of the Canada Shipping Act, the tonnage of the ship shall be ascertained in accordance with section 94 of that Act.
7(1) Prescription en matière de sauvetage
7. (1) L'article 471 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada s'applique à tous les services de sauvetage, qu'ils aient été rendus aux navires ou aéronefs de l'État ou à d'autres.
7(1) Limitation period for salvage proceedings
7. (1) Section 471 of the Canada Shipping Act applies in respect of salvage services rendered to Crown ships or aircraft as it applies in respect of salvage services rendered to other ships or aircraft.
7(2) Responsabilité en cas d'abordage
(2) De même, les articles 565 à 567 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada s'appliquent tant aux navires de l'État qu'aux autres.
7(2) Liability where collision, etc.
(2) Sections 565 to 567 of the Canada Shipping Act apply in respect of Crown ships as they apply in the case of other ships.
8 Sauvegarde de la prérogative et des pouvoirs de l'État
8. Les articles 3 à 7 n'ont pas pour effet d'engager la responsabilité de l'État pour tout fait C acte ou omission C commis dans l'exercice d'un pouvoir qui, sans ces articles, s'exercerait au titre de la prérogative royale ou d'une disposition législative, et notamment pour les faits commis dans l'exercice d'un pouvoir dévolu à l'État, en temps de paix ou de guerre, pour la défense du Canada, l'instruction des Forces canadiennes ou le maintien de leur efficacité.
8 Saving in respect of prerogative and statutory powers
8. Nothing in sections 3 to 7 makes the Crown liable in respect of anything done or omitted in the exercise of any power or authority that, if those sections had not been passed, would have been exercisable by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, or any power or authority conferred on the Crown by any statute, and, in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, nothing in those sections makes the Crown liable in respect of anything done or omitted in the exercise of any power or authority exercisable by the Crown, whether in time of peace or of war, for the purpose of the defence of Canada or of training, or maintaining the efficiency of, the Canadian Forces.
Power or authority conferred on the Crown by any statute = pouvoir... qui s'exercerait au titre... d'une disposition législative
The French version uses the term "pouvoir", whereas the English version refers to a "power or authority". It should be determined whether these two concepts are identical. However, there is a more significant textual difference: the English version refers to a "power or authority conferred on the Crown by any statute", but the French version does not restrict the application of the section to the "pouvoirs" conferred on the Crown by statute.[21] This can be compared with the wording of the final part of the French version, which refers to "faits commis dans l'exercice d'un pouvoir dévolu à l'État" ["anything done or omitted in the exercise of any power or authority exercisable by the Crown"].
Dispositions spéciales concernant la responsabilité
Special Provisions respecting Liability
9 Incompatibilité entre recours et droit à une pension ou indemnité
9. Ni l'État ni ses préposés ne sont susceptibles de poursuites pour toute perte C notamment décès, blessures ou dommages C ouvrant droit au paiement d'une pension ou indemnité sur le Trésor ou sur des fonds gérés par un organisme mandataire de l'État.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 4.
9 No proceedings lie where pension payable
9. No proceedings lie against the Crown or a servant of the Crown in respect of a claim if a pension or compensation has been paid or is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or out of any funds administered by an agency of the Crown in respect of the death, injury, damage or loss in respect of which the claim is made.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 4.
Death, injury, damage or loss = perte - notamment décès, blessures ou dommages
The French version does not have the same structure as the English version and is potentially broader, although it is hard to imagine a type of injury that would be covered by only one of the versions.
The term "perte/loss" does not have a specific technical meaning in the civil law, although it is used, for example, in articles 1611 and 1612 of the Civil Code of Québec, in opposition to a loss of profit. Section 9 quite clearly refers to "dommage/ damage", and that term could replace the enumeration in both versions. It may be preferable to the "préjudice/ injury" doublet, which may have a more restrictive connotation in common law and be associated with bodily injury.
Agency = mandataire
These two expressions are commonly used together, but the proper translation of "mandataire" in the civil law is "mandatary". However, one might ask whether "mandataire/ agency" is in fact a reference to provincial private law or whether it is not instead a term with a distinctive meaning in federal law.
10 Responsabilité quant aux actes de préposés
10. L'État ne peut être poursuivi, sur le fondement de l'alinéa 3a), pour les actes ou omissions de ses préposés que lorsqu'il y a lieu en l'occurrence, compte non tenu de la présente loi, à une action en responsabilité civile délictuelle contre leur auteur ou ses représentants.
10 Liability for acts of servants
10. No proceedings lie against the Crown by virtue of paragraph 3(a) in respect of any act or omission of a servant of the Crown unless the act or omission would apart from the provisions of this Act have given rise to a cause of action in tort against that servant or the servant's personal representative.
Personal representative = représentants
This problem has already been pointed out by Gaspard Côté, and not much can be added to what he has written on the issue.[22] In contemporary Quebec civil law, the term "représentant/ representative" refers to a person who performs a juridical act in the name and on behalf of another person. Such a person may be a tutor, a curator, or even a mandatary. In the former Civil Code, this term sometimes meant a successor (article 1030 C.C.L.C.), and it also appeared in the specific successional context of representation (articles 619 C.C.L.C. et seq.). The reality covered by the term "representative" is somewhat different at common law, as it also includes the persons responsible for administering an estate. Parliament's intention should be clarified in order to determine the meaning these words should be given. Considering the context, it would probably be advisable, as Côté suggests, to adopt a neutral term that applies to a succession or estate in both legal traditions.
Cause of action in tort = action en responsabilité civile délictuelle
11 Véhicules automobiles
11. L'article 4 ne permet aucun recours contre l'État à l'égard de dommages causés par un véhicule automobile sur une voie publique sauf si le conducteur ou l'un de ses représentants en est responsable.
11 Motor vehicles
11. No proceedings lie against the Crown by virtue of section 4 in respect of damage sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway unless the driver of the motor vehicle or the driver's personal representative is liable for the damage so sustained.
See discussion under section 4.
See discussion under section 10.
12(1) Avis de réclamation
12. (1) L'État ne peut être poursuivi sur le fondement de l'alinéa 3b) sauf si, dans les sept jours qui suivent le fait générateur du litige, il y a eu signification d'un avis de la demande et du préjudice subi à un responsable duministère ou de l'organisme qui assume la gestion du bien en cause ou à l'agent du ministère ou de l'organisme qui en est responsable.
12(1) Notice of claim
12. (1) No proceedings lie against the Crown by virtue of paragraph 3(b) unless, within seven days after the claim arose, notice in writing of the claim and of the injury complained of has been served on a responsibleofficial of the department or agency administering the property or the employee of the department or agency who is in control or charge of the property.
12(2) Exception
(2) Même sans excuse valable, le défaut d'avis mentionné au paragraphe (1), ou son insuffisance, n'empêche pas l'exercice d'un recours, pourvu que le tribunal saisi de l'affaire estime que l'État n'a pas subi de préjudice dans sa défense et qu'il serait injuste de prononcer l'irrecevabilité du recours.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 12; 1990, ch. 8, art. 23.
(2) Failure to give, or insufficiency of, the notice required by subsection (1) is not a bar to the proceedings if the court in which the proceedings are taken is of the opinion that the Crown in its defence was not prejudiced by the want or insufficiency of the notice and that to bar the proceedings would be an injustice, notwithstanding that reasonable excuse for the want or insufficiency of the notice is not established.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 12; 1990, c. 8, s. 23.
The claim arose = fait générateur du litige
Both expressions contain the same ambiguity, namely how to determine the time when the claim can be said to have arisen. As the same type of problem is likely to arise in applying the provisions of the Act concerning the jurisdiction of the courts, interest and prescription, it would be advisable to use consistent language. However, "fait générateur" is translated in subsection 21(2) as "cause of action". Elsewhere in section 21, "cause d'action" is translated as "claim". Section 31 contains the term "créance/claim", and the words "faits générateurs" have become "faits générateurs de l'instance" which is not a common usage in the civil law. All these provisions should be studied together with section 32 to ensure that the terminology is consistent.
Employee of the department or agency who is in control or charge of the property = agent du ministère ou de l'organisme qui en est responsable
There are a few disparities here between the two versions, which may acquire different meanings. First, "agent" is not a common translation for "employee" in the civil law. Second, the terminology of section 10, specifically the term "organisme mandataire/agency of the crown", has not been repeated here.
Administering the property = gestion du bien
Professors Kasirer et Brierley have already pointed out with respect to the Federal Real Property Act that these two expressions are not necessarily equivalent, especially in light of the new provisions of the Civil Code of Québec relating to the administration of the property of others.[23]
The requirement that notice in writing of the claim be served in such a short period is inconsistent with article 2930 C.C.Q., but it should be mentioned that article 2930 cannot prevail over a specific rule of a federal statute that provides otherwise.
13(1) Application de l'al. 3b)
13. (1) L'alinéa 3b) ne s'applique qu'aux biens appartenant à l'État et dont lui-même ou une personne agissant en son nom :
a) a assumé la responsabilité matérielle, dans le cas de biens meubles;
b) a eu l'occupation, dans le cas de biens immeubles.
13(1) Application of para 3(b)
13. (1) Paragraph 3(b) is not applicable in respect of any property owned by the Crown, unless the Crown or a person acting for the Crown has, in fact,
(a) in the case of personal property, taken physical control thereof; and
(b) in the case of real property, entered into occupation thereof
13(2) Effet des décrets
(2) L'alinéa 3b) ne s'applique pas aux biens respectivement visés par les alinéas (1)a) et b), et ce à compter de la date de publication, dans la Gazette du Canada, du décret mettant fin, avant ou après le 15 novembre 1954, à la responsabilité ou à l'occupation, selon le cas, de l'État jusqu'à celle de sa révocation.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 5.
13(2) Idem
(2) Where the Governor in Council has, by order published in the Canada Gazette, declared that the Crown has, before, on or after November 1, 1954, ceased to be in control of any specified personal property or to be in occupation of any specified real property, paragraph 3(b) is not applicable in respect of the specified property from the day of publication of the order until the day the order is revoked.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 5.
Paragraph 3(b) is not applicable in respect of any property owned by the Crown, unless... = l'alinéa 3b) ne s'applique qu'aux biens appartenant à l'État
There is a fundamental difference between the French and English versions, which has already been pointed out by Professors Dussault and Borgeat.[24] In the French version, ownership of the property by the Crown is an essential condition of liability under paragraph 3(b). On the other hand, the English version suggests that if the property belongs to the Crown, paragraph 3(b) is not applicable unless the conditions set out in section 13 are met, but it does not restrict the application of paragraph 3(b) in other cases. This error must be corrected immediately in a direction that respects Parliament's intention. Under Quebec civil law, the effect of the French version is to exclude the Crown from liability for the autonomous act of the thing where the Crown has custody of the property (this is what "responsabilité matérielle" probably means) but is not the owner thereof. Similarly, this version excludes the owner of an animal or an immovable from liability under articles 1466 and 1467 C.C.Q. where the owner does not have custody ("responsabilité matérielle") of the property or does not occupy the immovable.
Physical control = responsabilité matérielle
The French term does not have a clear meaning in the civil law, and it is not clear that this is a proper translation of the English version even at common law.
Personal property = biens meubles / Real property = biens immeubles
This is a case of a "semi-bijural" translation; its consequence is that the conditions of application of each paragraph are not the same at common law and in the civil law, since the terms do not have the same meanings in both languages.
Entered into occupation = a eu l'occupation
See discussion under section 3. It should also be noted that the verb tenses used here do not necessarily refer to the same point in time, as the English version suggests a continuity in occupation that is not clear from the French version.
Proceedings in rem
14 Actions réelles
14. La présente loi n'a pas pour effet d'autoriser les actions réelles visant des demandes contre l'État, non plus que la saisie, détention ou vente d'un navire, d'un aéronef, d'une cargaison ou d'autres biens appartenant à l'État, ni de conférer à quiconque un privilège sur un tel bien.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 6.
14 Proceedings in rem
14. Nothing in this Act authorizes proceedings in rem in respect of any claim against the Crown, or the arrest, detention or sale of any Crown ship or aircraft, or of any cargo or other property belonging to the Crown, or gives to any person any lien on any such ship, aircraft, cargo or other property.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 6.
Detention = détention
The word "detention" has a technical meaning in the civil law: "[a]ctual control of a thing" or "[d]etention based on a title which implies acknowledgement . . . of the superior rights of another in the thing held".[25] It is not clear that this is what this word should be understood to mean in the context of section 14.
Lien = privilège
Since the term "privilège" [privilege] has disappeared from the new Civil Code, its replacement should be considered here, as elsewhere in federal legislation. A term consistent with the meaning of the "privilège" concept in this particular statute must be found, and given a bijural translation. It would probably not be sufficient for this purpose to replace "privilège" with "priorité" [prior claim] without amending the English version, which disregards the civil law, and without considering the intention of Parliament concerning the guaranteed rights dealt with in section 14.
15. [Abrogé, 1990, ch. 8, art. 24]
15. [Repealed, 1990, c. 8, s. 24]
Sections 16 to 19
Loss or damage (sections 17 and 18) = dommage ou perte
See discussion under section 9.
Article 1621 C.C.Q. will undoubtedly be taken into account in assessing the quantum of the damages due to a person who incurred the loss or damage in question, to a maximum of five thousand dollars for each such person as set out in section 17. Furthermore, since this section makes it possible to order the Crown to pay, as the servant's employer and without personal fault, the punitive damages awarded against the servant, it can be argued that here it goes beyond the provincial jus commune in this area.
Accords sur l'environnement et le travail
Environmental and Labor Cooperation Agreements
Articles 20.1 à 20.4 :
21(1) Compétence concurrente des tribunaux provinciaux Affaires pendantes devant la Cour fédérale
21. (1) Dans les cas de réclamation visant l'État pour lesquels la Cour fédérale n'a pas compétence exclusive, a compétence concurrente en la matière :
a) la cour de comté ou de district de la province où survient la cause d'action qui aurait compétence, aux termes de la législation provinciale, si un particulier majeur et capable faisait l'objet de la réclamation;
b) la cour supérieure de la province où survient la cause d'action, s'il n'existe ni cour de comté ni cour de district dans cette province ou, dans le cas contraire, si elles n'ont pas compétence en la matière aux termes de la législation provinciale.(2) Aucun tribunal provincial n'est compétent pour connaître d'une poursuite si une autre, intentée pour le même fait générateur par la même personne C que ce soit avant ou après le début de la première C, est pendante devant la Cour fédérale.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 21; L.R. (1985), ch. 40 (4e suppl.), art. 2; 1990, ch. 8, art. 28.
21(1) Concurrent jurisdiction of provincial court
21. (1) In all cases where a claim is made against the Crown, except where the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction with respect thereto,
(a) the county or district court of the province in which the claim arises that would have jurisdiction under the laws of that province if the claim were against a private person of full age and capacity, or
(b) if there is no such county or district court or the county or district court does not have that jurisdiction, the superior court of the province has concurrent jurisdiction with respect to the subject-matter of the claim.
21(2) Where proceedings pending in Federal Court
(2) No court in a province has jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings taken by a person if proceedings taken by that person in the Federal Court in respect of the same cause of action, whether taken before or after the proceedings are taken in the court, are pending.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 21; R.S., 1985, c. 40 (4th Supp.), s. 2; 1990, c. 8, s. 28.
Cause of action = fait générateur / Claim = cause d'action
See discussion under section 12.
22(1) Déclaration de droits
22. (1) Le tribunal ne peut, lorsqu'il connaît d'une demande visant l'État, assujettir celui-ci à une injonction ou à une ordonnance d'exécution mais, dans les cas où ces recours pourraient être exercés entre particuliers, il peut, pour en tenir lieu, déclarer les droits des parties.
22(2)Préposés de l'État
(2) Le tribunal ne peut, dans aucune poursuite, rendre contre un préposé de l'État de décision qu'il n'a pas compétence pour rendre contre l'État.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 22; 1990, ch. 8, art. 28.
22(1) Declaration of rights
22. (1) Where in proceedings against the Crown any relief is sought that might, in proceedings between persons, be granted by way of injunction or specific performance, a court shall not, as against the Crown, grant an injunction or make an order for specific performance, but in lieu thereof may make an order declaratory of the rights of the parties.
22(2) Servants of Crown
(2) A court shall not in any proceedings grant relief or make an order against a servant of the Crown that it is not competent to grant or make against the Crown.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 22; 1990, c. 8, s. 28.
Persons = particuliers
Injunction or order for specific performance = injonction ou ordonnance d'exécution
This wording is based entirely on the common law, as it refers to two concepts that are distinct at common law but that overlap in the civil law. At common law, "injunction" refers to the general power of the courts to order that a thing be done, whereas "specific performance" is a term of contract law relating to the performance of specific contract obligations. In the civil law, "specific performance" includes all forms of performance in kind, including the performance in kind of an extracontractual obligation, which will in most cases be obtained by means of an injunction. The term "ordonnance d'exécution". has no specific meaning in the civil law and could be replaced by "exécution en nature" without affecting the provision's bijuralism.
23(1) Exercice des poursuites visant l'État
23. (1) Les poursuites visant l'État peuvent être exercées contre le procureur général du Canada ou, lorsqu'elles visent un organisme mandataire de l'État, contre cet organisme si la législation fédérale le permet.
23(1) Taking of proceedings against Crown
23. (1) Proceedings against the Crown may be taken in the name of the Attorney General of Canada or, in the case of an agency of the Crown against which proceedings are by an Act of Parliament authorized to be taken in the name of the agency, in the name of that agency.
Agency of the Crown = organisme mandataire
23(2) Signification de l'acte introductif d'instance
(2) Dans les cas visés au paragraphe (1), la signification à l'État de l'acte introductif d'instance est faite à personne au sous-procureur général du Canada ou au premier dirigeant de l'organisme concerné, selon le cas.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 23; 1990, ch. 8, art. 29.
23(2) Service of originating document
(2) Where procedings are taken against the Crown, the document originating the proceedings shall be served on the Crown by serving it on the deputy Attorney General of Canada or the chief executive officer of the agency in whose name the proceedings are taken, as the case may be.
R.S. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 23; 1990, ch. 8, art. 29.
24 Moyens de défense
24. Dans des poursuites exercées contre lui, l'État peut faire valoir tout moyen de défense qui pourrait être invoqué :
a) devant un tribunal compétent dans une instance entre particuliers;
b) devant la Cour fédérale dans le cadre d'une demande introductive.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 24; 1990, ch. 8, art. 30.
24. In any proceedings against the Crown, the Crown may raise
(a) any defence that would be available if the proceedings were a suit or an action in a competent court between subject and subject; and
(b) any defence that would be available if the proceedings were by way of statement of claim in the Federal Court.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 24; 1990, c. 8, s. 30.
Between subject and subject = entre particuliers
25 Nécessité d'une autorisation pour les jugements par défaut
25. Dans les poursuites exercées contre lui, l'État ne peut faire l'objet d'un jugement par défaut de comparaître ou de plaider qu'avec l'autorisation du tribunal obtenue sur demande, un préavis d'au moins quatorze jours francs devant être donné de celle-ci au sous-procureur général du Canada.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 25; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
25 No judgment by default without leave
25. In any proceedings against the Crown, judgment shall not be entered against the Crown in default of appearance or pleading without leave of the court obtained on an application at least fourteen clear days notice of which has been given to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 25; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
26 Procès sans jury
26. Les procès instruits contre l'État ont lieu sans jury.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 26; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
27 No jury trials
26. In any proceedings against the Crown, trial shall be without a jury.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 26; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
27 Règles de pratique
27. Sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi ou de ses règlements, les instances suivent les règles de pratique et de procédure du tribunal saisi.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 27; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
27 Rules of court
27. Except as otherwise provided by this Act or the regulations, the rules of practice and procedure of the court in which proceedings are taken apply in those proceedings.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 27; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
28(1) Adjudication
28. (1) Dans toute poursuite à laquelle l'État est partie, les dépens peuvent aussi bien lui être adjugés que mis à sa charge.
28(1) Costs
28. (1) In any proceedings to which the Crown is a party, costs may be awarded to or against the Crown.
28(2) Dépens adjugés à l'État
(2) Les dépens adjugés à l'État ne peuvent être refusés ni réduits lors de la taxation au seul motif que l'avocat pour les services duquel ils sont justifiés ou réclamés était un fonctionnaire salarié de l'État, et à ce titre rémunéré pour les services qu'il fournissait dans le cadre de ses fonctions, ou bien n'était pas, de par son statut ou pour toute autre raison, admis à prélever les dépens sur l'État pour les services ainsi rendus.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 28; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
28(2) Costs awarded to Crown
(2) Costs awarded to the Crown shall not be disallowed or reduced on taxation by reason only that the solicitor or counsel who earned the costs, or in respect of whose services the costs are charged, was a salaried officer of the Crown performing those services in the discharge of the officer's duty and was remunerated therefor by a salary, or for that or any other reason was not entitled to recover any costs from the Crown in respect of the services so rendered.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 28; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
29 Non-exécution contre l'État
29. Les jugements rendus contre l'État ne sont pas susceptibles d'exécution par voie de contrainte.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 29; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
29 No execution against Crown
29. No execution shall issue on a judgment against the Crown.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 29; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
30(1) Paiement en exécution d'un jugement
30. (1) Sur réception d'un certificat réglementaire, le ministre des Finances autorise le paiement, sur le Trésor, de toute somme d'argent accordée à un particulier, par jugement contre l'État.
30(1) Payment of judgment
30. (1) On receipt of a certificate of judgment against the Crown issued pursuant to the regulations, the Minister of Finance shall authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of any money awarded by the judgment to any person against the Crown.
Person = particulier
30(2) Versement au receveur général des dépens dus à l'État
(2) Les sommes d'argent ou les dépens adjugés à l'État dans toutes procédures sont versés au receveur général.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 30; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
30(2) Crown costs to be paid to Receiver General
(2) Any money or costs awarded to the Crown in any proceedings shall be paid to the Receiver General.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 30; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
31(1) Intérêt avant jugement C Fait survenu dans une province
31. (1) Sauf disposition contraire de toute autre loi fédérale, et sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les règles de droit en matière d'intérêt avant jugement qui, dans une province, régissent les rapports entre particuliers s'appliquent à toute instance visant l'État devant le tribunal et dont le fait générateur est survenu dans cette province.
31(1) Prejudgment interest, cause of action within province
31. (1) Except as otherwise provided in any other Act of Parliament and subject to subsection (2), the laws relating to prejudgment interest in proceedings between subject and subject that are in force in a province apply to any proceedings against the Crown in any court in respect of any cause of action arising in that province.
31(2) Intérêt avant jugement C Fait non survenu dans une seule province
(2) Dans une instance visant l'État devant le tribunal et dont le fait générateur n'est pas survenu dans une province ou dont les faits générateurs sont survenus dans plusieurs provinces, les intérêts avant jugement sont calculés au taux que le tribunal estime raisonnable dans les circonstances et :
a) s'il s'agit d'une créance d'une somme déterminée, depuis la ou les dates du ou des faits générateurs jusqu'à la date de l'or­donnance de paiement;
b) si la somme n'est pas déterminée, depuis la date à laquelle le créancier a avisé par écrit l'État de sa demande jusqu'à la date de l'ordonnance de paiement.
31(2) Prejudgment interest, cause of action outside province
(2) A person who is entitled to an order for the payment of money in respect of a cause of action against the Crown arising outside any province or in respect of causes of action against the Crown arising in more than one province is entitled to claim and have included in the order an award of interest thereon at such rate as the court considers reasonable in the circumstances, calculated
(b) where the order is made on an unliquidated claim, from the date the person entitled gave notice in writing of the claim to the Crown to the date of the order.
Proceedings...in respect of any cause of action = Instance...dont le fait générateur
Liquidated claim = créance d'une somme déterminée
Although a civil law jurist would understand the expression "créance d'une somme déterminée", it is not the usual term, which is "créance liquide/liquid claim".
31(3) Dommages-intérêts spéciaux
(3) Si l'ordonnance de paiement accorde des dommages-intérêts spéciaux, les intérêts prévus au paragraphe (2) sont calculés sur le solde du montant des dommages-intérêts spéciaux accumulés à la fin de chaque période de six mois postérieure à l'avis écrit mentionné à l'alinéa (2)b) ainsi qu'à la date de cette ordonnance.
31(3) Special damages
Special damages = dommages-intérêts spéciaux
This concept is unknown to the civil law in this form. At common law, it is the opposite of "general damages", that is, those damages that are presumed to be the natural consequence of a "wrong" committed by a person. In this sense, "special damages" are damages that flow from the specific circumstances and situation of the victim, which often require specific proof and prior notice at common law. A distinction is sometimes made between special damages, which can be assessed precisely (pre-trial expenses and losses), and general damages, which are said not to be susceptible of precise assessment (loss of future earning capacity, pain and suffering, etc.).
31(4) Exceptions
(4) Il n'est pas accordé d'intérêts aux termes du paragraphe (2) :
c) sur les dépens de l'instance;
d) sur la partie du montant de l'ordonnance de paiement que le tribunal précise comme représentant une perte pécuniaire postérieure à la date de cette ordonnance;
e) si l'ordonnance de paiement est rendue de consentement, sauf si l'État accepte de les payer;
(d) on that part of the order that represents pecuniary loss arising after the date of the order and that is identified by a finding of the court;
(e) where the order is made on consent, except by consent of the Crown; or
31(5) Discrétion judiciaire
(5) Le tribunal peut, s'il l'estime juste, compte tenu de la fluctuation des taux d'intérêt commerciaux, du déroulement des procédures et de tout autre motif valable, refuser l'intérêt ou l'accorder pour une période autre que celle prévue à l'égard du montant total ou partiel sur lequel l'intérêt est calculé en vertu du présent article.
31(5) Judicial discretion
(5) A court may, where it considers it just to do so, having regard to changes in market interest rates, the conduct of the proceedings or any other relevant consideration, disallow interest or allow interest for a period other than that provided for in subsection (2) in respect of the whole or any part of the amount on which interest is payable under this section.
31(6) Application Droit maritime canadien
(6) Le présent article s'applique aux sommes accordées par jugement rendu à compter de la date de son entrée en vigueur. Aucun intérêt ne peut être accordé à l'égard d'une période antérieure à cette date.
(7) Le présent article ne s'applique pas aux procédures en matière de droit maritime canadien, au sens de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 31; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
31(6) Application
31(7) Canadian maritime law
(7) This section does not apply in respect of any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of Canadian maritime law within the meaning of the Federal Court Act.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 31; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
31.1(1) Intérêts sur les jugements C Fait survenu dans une province
31.1 (1) Sauf disposition contraire de toute autre loi fédérale et sous réserve du paragraphe (2), les règles de droit en matière d'intérêt pour les jugements qui, dans une province, régissent les rapports entre particuliers s'appliquent aux jugements rendus contre l'État dans les cas où un fait générateur est survenu dans cette province.
31.1(1) Judgment interest, causes of action within province
31.1 (1) Except as otherwise provided in any other Act of Parliament and subject to subsection (2), the laws relating to interest on judgments in causes of section between subject and subject that are in force in a province apply to judgments against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province.
31.1(2) Intérêt sur les jugements C Fait non survenu dans une seule province
(2) Un jugement rendu contre l'État, dans le cas où le fait générateur n'est pas survenu dans une province ou dans celui où les faits générateurs sont survenus dans plusieurs provinces, porte intérêt, à compter de son prononcé, au taux que la Cour estime raisonnable dans les circonstances.
1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
31.1(2) Judgment interest, causes of action outside or in more than one province
(2) A judgment against the Crown in respect of a cause of action outside any province or in respect of causes of action arising in more than one province shall bear interest at such rate as the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances, calculated from the time of the giving of the judgment.
1990, c. 8, s. 31.
Cause of action = fait générateur
31.2(1) Offre de paiement
31.2 (1) L'État peut, dans toute instance, faire une offre de paiement sans consigner au tribunal la somme d'argent ainsi offerte.
31.2(1) Tenders
31.2 (1) The Crown may, in any proceeding, plead a tender without paying the money tendered into court.
31.2(2) Offre écrite
(2) Toute offre d'une somme d'argent faite au nom de l'État est censée constituer une offre légale si elle est signée par un ministre ou son délégué à cet effet et notifiée au créancier.
31.2(2) Written offer
(2) Every tender of a sum of money on behalf of the Crown shall be deemed to be legally made if made by a written offer to pay the sum, given under the hand of a minister of the Crown, or a person acting for that minister in that behalf, and notified to the person having the claim to that sum.
32 Règles applicables
32. Sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale, les règles de droit en matière de prescription qui, dans une province, régissent les rapports entre particuliers s'appliquent lors des poursuites auxquelles l'État est partie pour tout fait générateur survenu dans la province. Lorsque ce dernier survient ailleurs que dans une province, la procédure se prescrit par six ans.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 32; 1990, ch. 8, art. 31.
32 Provincial laws applicable
32. Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other Act of Parliament, the laws relating to prescription and the limitation of actions in force in a province between subject and subject apply to any proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of any cause of action arising in that province, and proceedings by or against the Crown in respect of a cause of action arising otherwise than in a province shall be taken within six years after the cause of action arose.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 32; 1990, c. 8, s. 31.
Prescription and the limitation of actions = Prescription
In the civil law context, the French term covers both acquisitive prescription and extinctive prescription. The English phrase has the appearance of a doublet in this respect, but it also evokes two distinct common law realities that do not necessarily have the same content as the civil law concept of prescription.
Application des lois à l'État
Application of statutes to Crown
33 Application des lois à l'État
33. Sauf disposition expresse contraire, la présente loi n'a pas pour effet de modifier les règles de preuve ou présomptions établissant le degré d'obligation imposé à l'État par les lois fédérales.
S.R., ch. C-38, art. 20.
33 Application of statutes to Crown
33. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects any rule of evidence or any presumption relating to the extent to which the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament.
R.S., c. C-38, s. 20.
The extent to which the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament = degré d'obligation imposé à l'État par les lois fédérales
As Côté has pointed out, the French version is a rather poor rendering of Parliaments intention to preserve the scope of the Crown's immunity with respect to federal legislation.[26] It should be redrafted.
34 Règlements
34. Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement :
a) prescrire des règles de pratique et de procédure applicables lors des poursuites auxquelles l'État est partie, ainsi que fixer les tarifs d'honoraires et les dépens;
c) régir la délivrance des certificats de jugements rendus contre l'État;
d) appliquer aux poursuites visant l'État toute règle de preuve applicable entre particuliers;
e) d'une façon générale, prendre toute mesure nécessaire relativement aux poursuites auxquelles l'État est partie.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 34; 1990, ch. 8, art. 32.
34. The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing rules of practice and procedure in respect of proceedings by or against the Crown, including tariffs of fees and costs;
(b) prescribing forms for the purposes of proceedings referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) respecting the issue of certificates of judgments against the Crown;
(d) making applicable to any proceedings against the Crown all or any of the rules of evidence applicable in similar proceedings between subject and subject; and
(e) generally respecting proceedings by or against the Crown.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 34; 1990, c. 8, s. 32.
Mandataires et préposés de l'État
Agencies and Servants of the Crown
35(1) Poursuites contre des organismes mandataires de l'État
35. (1) La présente loi, à l'exception de l'article 22, s'applique aux poursuites intentées aux termes d'une loi fédérale contre un organisme mandataire de l'État.
35(1) Proceedings against Crown agencies
35. (1) This Act, except section 22, applies in respect of any proceedings against an agency of the Crown taken in accordance with any Act of Parliament that authorizes the proceedings to be taken.
Agency of the Crown = organisme mandataire de l'État
35(2) Paiement
(2) Les sommes d'argent adjugées et l'intérêt afférent accordé conformément à la présente loi peuvent être payés sur les fonds administrés par l'organisme en cause.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 35; 1990, ch. 8, art. 32.
35(2) Payment of award
(2) Any money awarded to any person by a judgment in any proceedings referred to in subsection (1), or the interest thereon, may be paid out of any funds administered by the agency of the Crown.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 35; 1990, c. 8, s. 32.
36 G.R.C. et Forces canadiennes
36. Pour la détermination des questions de responsabilité dans toute action ou autre procédure engagée par ou contre l'État, quiconque était lors des faits en cause membre des Forces canadiennes ou de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada est assimilé à un préposé de l'État.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-50, art. 36; 1990, ch. 8, art. 32.
36 Status of Canadian Forces and R.C.M.P.
36. For the purposes of determining liability in any proceedings by or against the Crown, a person who was at any time a member of the Canadian Forces or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall be deemed to have been at that time a servant of the Crown.
R.S., 1985, c. C-50, s. 36; 1990, c. 8, s. 32.
DISPOSITION CONNEXE
RELATED PROVISION
C L.R. (1985), ch. 40 (4e suppl.), par. 2(2) :
Disposition transitoire : procédures
«(2) Les procédures intentées, avant l'entrée en vigueur du présent article, en vertu de dispositions modifiées en annexe, se poursuivent en conformité avec ces dispositions, sans autres formalités.»
C R.S., 1985, c. 40 (4th Supp.), s. 2(2):
Transitional - proceedings
"(2) Every proceeding commenced before the coming into force of this section under a provision amended by the schedule shall be taken up and continued under and in conformity with the amended provision without any further formality."
MODIFICATION NON EN VIGUEUR
C 1993, ch. 28, art. 78 (ann. III, art. 38):
38. La définition de «préposés», à l'article 2, est abrogée et remplacée par ce qui suit :
«préposés»
«préposés» Sont assimilés aux préposés les mandataires. La présente définition exclut les personnes nommées ou engagées sous le régime d'une ordonnance du territoire du Yukon ou des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, ou d'une loi de la Législature du Nunavut ou de toute autre règle de droit en vigueur au Nunavut par application de l'article 29 de la Loi sur le Nunavut.
C 1993, c. 28, s. 78 (Sch. III, s. 38):
38. The definition "servant" in section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"servant" includes agent, but does not include any person appointed or employed by or under the authority of an ordinance of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories or a law made by the Legislature for Nunavut or continued by section 29 of the Nunavut Act.
* Analysis prepared for the Department of Justice of Canada, March 1996.
[1] A. Morel and J.M. Brisson,"Federal Law and Civil Law: Complementarity and Dissociation," paper prepared for the Department of Justice of Canada, March 1995.
[2] On this subject, see the article by L. Levert, "Le bijuridisme législatif", presented in Montreal on March 25, 1996, from which I have borrowed the methodology.
[3] Five provinces have statutory schemes for an occupant's liability: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.
[4] G. Côté, "Révision législative des lois fédérales eu égard aux dispositions du Code civil du Québec. Loi retenue: Loi sur la responsabilité civile de l'État et le contentieux administratif." Study prepared for the Department of Justice of Canada, March 1995.
[5] On this last subject, i.e. the impact of the new law, the comments assume that the reference to Quebec law, at least for that part of Quebec law that can be described as the jus commune, is evolving or dynamic. Despite the controversy that has raged over this question, it seems that this solution is the one that has received the most support from commentators and the courts, and that the Crown is hesitant to apply it today. See in particular R. Dussault and L. Borgeat, Administrative Law: a Treatise, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1990), Vol. 5, at pp. 66-76. Whatever the case, should reference to the new civil law be considered closed, the comments relating to it can be disregarded.
[6] The expression "État" is translated as "Crown" throughout the Act.
[7] J.E.C. Brierley and N. Kasirer,"Review of the Federal Real Property Act / Loi sur les immeubles fédéraux in light of the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec," study prepared for the working group on the revision of federal statutes, April 1995, at page 779.
[8] On the meaning of the word "agent" and how it relates to the subordination concept inherent in the master-servant relationship, see H. Immarigeaon. La responsabilité extra-contractuelle de la Couronne au Canada (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 1966), at pp. 91-93. It should be noted that the 1953 Act used the term «agent» in both English and French.
[9] This danger was raised by A. Morel in "La révision de la législation fédérale à la lumière du Code civil du Québec," final report submitted to the Department of Justice of Canada, March 1995, at p. 22.
[10] S.Q. 1992, c. 57.
[11] On this question, see H. Immarigeon, supra note 8, at pp. 116-117, and G. Pépin and Y. Ouellette, Principes de contentieux administratif (Montreal: Yvon Blais, 1979), at pp. 365-370.
[12] Brierley et Kasirer, supra note 7, at pp. 784-85.
[13] G. Côté, supra note 4, at pp. 8-15.
[14] See R. v. Breton [1967] S.C.R. 503. The English version of the provision does not support this analysis: it refers to a "breach of duty" rather than "breach of the duty".
[15] See Dussault and Borgeat, supra note 5, at p. 107.
[16] Domestic Converters Corp. v. Arctic Steamship Line, [1984] 1 F.C. 211. See also Commission des accidents du travail v. Conseil des ports nationaux, [1982] C.S. 22. On the broader question of the inapplicability to the Crown of liability systems based on a presumption, see Dussault and Borgeat, supra note 5, at pp. 76-82.
[17] The wording used in the English version evokes forms of liability in which human intervention is less important and suggests a category unique to common law. See, for example, Duncan v. The Queen, [1966] Ex.C.R. 1080 (rule in Rylands v. Fletcher), and Mart Steel Corp. v. The Queen, [1974] 1 F.C. 45 (T.D.) (nuisance). On this subject, see in particular H. Immarigeon, supra note 8, at p. 120.
[18] See, for example, on the liability of an "occupant", Air Canada v. Canada (1993), 61 F.T.R. 97, and Deslauriers-Drago v. The Queen, [1963] Ex. C.R. 289.
[19] G. Côté, supra note 4, at p. 8.
[20] G. Côté, supra note 4, at p. 16.
[21] See Baird v. La Reine, [1984] 2 C.F. 160, in which this distinction is discussed briefly.
[22] G. Côté, supra note 4, at p. 20.
[23] J.E.C. Brierley and N. Kasirer, supra note 7, at p. 790.
[24] R. Dussault and L. Borgeat, supra note 5, at pp. 111-113.
[25] Private Law Dictionary and Bilingual Lexicons, 2nd ed., Quebec Research Centre of Private and Comparative Law (Cowansville: Yvon Blais, 1991).
[26] G. Côté, supra note 4, at p. 36.