I would like your opinion?

[redlaser]

Can Transport Canada be sued for not providing a service to the Aviation public, in regards to pilot licences and ratings, Do regulations apply when TC fails to provide the services they are mandated to provide ?, I'd like your input,,,,

[photofly]

Don’t think so:

See the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... age-1.html

[Liftdump]

Not 100% sure but the old saying YOU CANT FIGHT CITY HALL comes to mind.

[redlaser]

Photofly, its 15 pages long but even the government of Canada is not above the law, Omar Khadr got 10 million when he sued the Trudeau government.

[photofly]

There's a difference between the Government acting unlawfully, and the Government failing to act. It's not against the law not to schedule you a flight test, and I don't think you'll get 10 million for it.

On the other hand, if you tried to claim they would book you a flight test in English but not in French, I don't think there's a limit to what you could win.

[iflyforpie]

Flying is a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Khadr fought the Trudeau and Harper government for the violation of his charter rights under the Chrétien and Martin and Harper governments.

Good luck with that.

[rookiepilot]

On the other hand, if you tried to claim they would book you a flight test in English but not in French, I don't think there's a limit to what you could win.

[7ECA]

The other thing to remember is that this is a bit of an unprecedented situation, so there's bound to be clusterfuckery along the way. I doubt it would matter which party was in power, none of them was or would have been, prepared for this sort of situation.

[jakeandelwood]

lawsuit happy people, aren't they the ones that pretty much brought Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft to their knees in the late eighties?

[CL-Skadoo!]

Photofly, its 15 pages long but even the government of Canada is not above the law, Omar Khadr got 10 million when he sued the Trudeau government.

You want to sue the government but won't skim through a 15 page document? You're entering a world of pain if you don't like to read.

[Launchpad1]

Don't want to be glib but sometimes: Shit happens.

[co-joe]

Photofly, its 15 pages long but even the government of Canada is not above the law, Omar Khadr got 10 million when he sued the Trudeau government.

My recollection is that he sued the Harper government, but by the time the suit saw the light of day, Trudeau was in power and got the blame for it. Not trying to be political, not a big fan of selfie boy just pointing out how long these things can take.


As far as the level of service thing, It seems that TC is above the law. And the pandemic gives them an unforeseen circumstance that makes it much more difficult to provide any level of service during this crap.

[455tt]

Can Transport Canada be sued for not providing a service to the Aviation public, in regards to pilot licences and ratings, Do regulations apply when TC fails to provide the services they are mandated to provide ?, I'd like your input,,,,

Yes, of course you can, if you have a case.

You should seek and obtain the advice of a lawyer having experience in this area to review the facts of your situation and applicable law so as to determine if there is a case and if so, whether it is worthy of pursuing.

The federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act referred to does not prevent one from suing the federal government; it merely sets out the circumstances where a case can be brought and the procedure to be followed.

[jakeandelwood]

If you do end up suing TC hopefully for your sake they don't have a soup nazi list..... "sorry son, it looks like you failed your checkride again, better luck next time"

[Bede]

No you cannot. To sue you must have a provable cause of action. In this case there is none.

[photofly]

The federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act referred to does not prevent one from suing the federal government; it merely sets out the circumstances where a case can be brought and the procedure to be followed.

Right... and if this isn’t a circumstance where a case can be brought (and it isn’t) then the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act prevents one from suing the federal government in this case.

In any event, the answer lies in the Act, which is why I posted a link to it.

[rookiepilot]

Probably as likely as the chances of successfully suing YVR Terminal for refusing VFR service.......

[455tt]

The federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act referred to does not prevent one from suing the federal government; it merely sets out the circumstances where a case can be brought and the procedure to be followed.

Right... and if this isn’t a circumstance where a case can be brought (and it isn’t) then the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act prevents one from suing the federal government in this case.

In any event, the answer lies in the Act, which is why I posted a link to it.

So you are quite certain "this isn't a circumstance where a case can be brought" as you state.

OK.

What year were you called to the bar?

[photofly]

Can Transport Canada be sued for not providing a service to the Aviation public

You can bring suit against the government for a tort; for instance negligence. In order for a claim of negligence to succeed, the plaintiff must show that a duty of care was owed to them by the defendant.

PIlot licences and ratings are aviation documents under the terms of the Aeronautics Act. I don't see anything in the Act that says the Minister must renew an expiring rating, or that a duty of care is owed to a pilot.

The BC Supreme court examined a very similar issue in Gill v. Canada (Minister of Transport). Speaking about the Transport Canada regulatory regime, the court held:

Further, the leading authorities establish that, as a general proposition, statutory duties or powers imposed on a regulator to promote the public interest do not create a duty of care to specific members of the public who benefit from the scheme

The evident and overriding purpose of this aspect of the scheme of regulation is to ensure public safety. The obligations imposed on Transport Canada are owed to the public at large, and in particular, the traveling public as a whole. I do not accept that in discharging its responsibilities to protect public safety in considering whether to allow an operator to continue its operations, Transport Canada is also obliged to consider the economic consequences for the operator if its operating certificate is suspended. In exercising its obligations in respect of such a matter, it is not part of the statutory scheme that Transport Canada promote or protect the economic interests of, or otherwise benefit, the operator.

[32] As with other statutory schemes directed towards the public good, the scheme does not disclose a legislative intention to create a private law duty of care. Provided the regulator deals with regulated entities for the purpose of administering and enforcing the statutory scheme, the interactions with the regulated entity will not give rise to a relationship of proximity, no matter how close and direct that relationship may be.

This case is, of course, distinguishable from what I understand redlaser's complaint to be, on several grounds, which might make all the difference. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

[455tt]

Aha! So you admit that you are not a lawyer.

My recommendation remains the same, which is:

"You should seek and obtain the advice of a lawyer having experience in this area to review the facts of your situation and applicable law so as to determine if there is a case and if so, whether it is worthy of pursuing."

[Bede]

Aha! So you admit that you are not a lawyer.

My recommendation remains the same, which is:

"You should seek and obtain the advice of a lawyer having experience in this area to review the facts of your situation and applicable law so as to determine if there is a case and if so, whether it is worthy of pursuing."

Most lawyers have no clue about aviation law. The practise of law is not only about law- it’s the application of the law to a subject. If one knows little about the subject there’s little advantage to getting a lawyer. Honestly, I’d trust the opinions of some of the more knowledge posters on this forum than some random lawyer. And it’s way cheaper:)

[JBI]

The federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act referred to does not prevent one from suing the federal government; it merely sets out the circumstances where a case can be brought and the procedure to be followed.

Right... and if this isn’t a circumstance where a case can be brought (and it isn’t) then the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act prevents one from suing the federal government in this case.

In any event, the answer lies in the Act, which is why I posted a link to it.

So you are quite certain "this isn't a circumstance where a case can be brought" as you state.

OK.

What year were you called to the bar?

Aha! So you admit that you are not a lawyer.

My recommendation remains the same, which is:

"You should seek and obtain the advice of a lawyer having experience in this area to review the facts of your situation and applicable law so as to determine if there is a case and if so, whether it is worthy of pursuing."

Ok I'll bite. I was called to the bar in 2010 and was involved in the Gill case referenced by photofly. He/she is generally correct. Respectfully redlaser, photofly gave you the info to search out some of the answers but your response was "too long, didn't read" (For reference, the Gill decision is 69 pages + 5 other decisions on motions, costs and appeals and took over 7 years to be resolved

The thing with suing the government is that it better be worthwhile, cause it's going to cost you a lot of money.You can go see a lawyer and that's not a bad idea per se, but a lawyer's time costs money. I'm willing to bet that redlaser wouldn't be willing to pay for a lawyer to take a thorough review of his situation to make provide an opinion on whether it makes sense to proceed to a lawsuit. I would trust Bede's opinion on this matter more than most general practitioner lawyers.

[photofly]

In general, lawyers are regulated by their Law Society and the Law Societies take a very dim view of anything that sounds like a lawyer offering legal advice to someone who isn't established as a client and without properly knowing the facts.

You should assume that anyone who offers what even hints at sounding like legal advice in a public forum, who clearly hasn't sat the prospective client down in a chair, done a conflict of interest check, accepted a retainer, formally established the potential plaintiff as a client (including all the know-your-client rules) and taken care to establish all the background and other facts - before offering an opinion - CANNOT be a lawyer. If they were, that would be professional misconduct.

Questions like "can XYZ be sued" aren't to be taken seriously on AvCanada, they're just an excuse to do a little background reading and share what you've learned.

[redlaser]

In my honest opinion I think that TC has failed all the aviation community by shutting down it's services, From flight tests to aviation enforcement, And who decided to shut down TC, was it the Minister of Transport Hon. Marc Garneau or some other low level employee, What about Nav Canada, did they all go home because of the coronavirus, Did numb nuts Garneau take into consideration all the aspects of shutting down TC and sending everyone home. Just how many pilots and other flight personnel are affected, lost of flying privileges etc.