[110] Before I conclude by dealing with each of the appeals, I will provide a brief summary. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a particular court to decide a particular type of case. The Ontario Superior Court, as a court of general jurisdiction, has the prima facie power to decide every type of case, provided the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. Only by clear and explicit limitation may the power of the Superior Court to decide a particular type of case be curtailed. For example, as in Weber, a statutory remedial scheme or an arbitration clause will remove the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Section 18 of the FCA clearly does not limit the right to bring an action in contract or tort, or for breach of Charter rights, in the Superior Court. It does not provide for the remedy sought by the plaintiff in any of the four cases. Thus, a judgment may be properly rendered if a court has the power to adjudicate the type of controversy contained in the statement of claim. The Superior Court has such power in each of the four cases.
[111] A collateral attack refers to challenging the correctness of a judgment through subsequent independent proceedings. The attack is collateral to the initial judgment that was accepted and not appealed. There is no attack on the relevant administrative decision in the pleadings of any of the four cases. Nor does an attack emerge from the record. In each case the plaintiff claimed damages in tort or contract. It is also noteworthy that in none of the cases did the plaintiff participate in the decision-making process of the administrative decision. Therefore, in none of the four cases was there a collateral attack on an administrative decision. Moreover, a collateral attack is a defence and does not go to jurisdiction.
BEST WISHES FOR THE HOLIDAYS!!!!!
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
No comments:
Post a Comment