|
Access to Justice - 'Rights and Remedies' Doctrine. Whiteduck v. Ontario
In Whiteduck v. Ontario (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal cites a basic aspect of remedial law:[18] It is almost axiomatic that where there is a right, there must be a remedy to protect that right.[See Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 166, at para. 120, per Abella J., and at para. 214, per Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting in part.] ...
....
[70] In TeleZone, the Supreme Court wanted to avoid bifurcated proceedings by which a party seeking damages against the federal government would first have to successfully apply for judicial review in the Federal Court. Justice Binnie made several comments in TeleZone, at paras. 18 and 19. He said, “[p]eople who claim to be injured by government action should have whatever redress the legal system permits through procedures that minimize unnecessary cost and complexity.” In his view, the court’s approach “should be practical and pragmatic with that objective in mind.” Justice Binnie added: “[a]ccess to justice requires that the claimant be permitted to pursue its chosen remedy directly and, to the greatest extent possible, without procedural detours.” I would read these comments as being of more general application and of relevance to this case. The interests of justice are better served by allowing all the claims to move forward together in one action than by requiring some relief to be sought by way of an application for judicial review, consistent with s. 138 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which provides that “[a]s far as possible, multiplicity of legal proceedings shall be avoided.”
|
