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.

Torts – Negligence – Duty of care – Civil procedure – Class actions – Pleadings – Motion to strike statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – Is a new form of legal liability from wrongful actions of public officials necessary – Is the proposed species of action blending public law and tort law an intrusion on the legislative function – Can a prima facie duty of care arise from statements of regulatory intent and undertakings to consult with industry.

Beekeepers replenish losses to their colonies either by introducing a “package”, (a container holding a small colony, including a queen) or introducing a “queen” (with a few attendant bees). Under the Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21, the Minister may make regulations prohibiting the importation of any animal for the purpose of preventing a disease or toxic substance from being introduced into Canada. Absent specific regulations, animal importation is managed through ministerial permits under s. 160 of the Health of Animals Regulations, C.R.C. 296 (“Regulations”). The Minister made a series of specific regulations prohibiting the importation of honeybees into Canada from continental United States due to concerns about a tracheal mite bee pest. Under the last regulation, the prohibition did not apply to the importation of a honeybee queen and its attendant bees from the US pursuant to a permit issued under s. 160 of the Regulations. When it expired in 2006, the regulation was not renewed or replaced by formal Ministerial Order or Directive. Instead, the continued importation of queen and attendant bees was allowed under permit, but the Minister adopted a policy that no permits would be issued for the importation of packages.

The respondents filed a motion for certification of a class action. They claimed the applicants owed them a duty of care under the legislation and through their interactions with the beekeeping industry, and had been negligent in allowing an improper continuation of the prohibition on importation of honeybees from the US. They also claimed that the applicants acted without lawful authority by imposing a de facto prohibition on importations in 2007 and onward, and abdicating their authority to an improper third party to make decisions on improper considerations. The applicants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and the respondents filed a motion record attaching a proposed amended statement of claim. The Federal Court granted the applicants’ motion to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and dismissed the action with costs. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court judgment and dismissed the motion to strike, making no order as to costs.