Date:20010307
Docket: T-1805-98
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 157
BETWEEN:
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER
AND REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO
Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] Her Majesty the Queen (the "Defendant") seeks an order staying this action pending the conclusion of certain proceedings pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (the "Act"), now before the Ontario Court of Justice in Hamilton, in which Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker and Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro (the "Plaintiffs") are parties.
[2] The Defendant bases her motion upon section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 which provides as follows:
| 50(1) The Court may, in its discretion, stay proceedings in any cause or matter, (b) where for any other reason it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings be stayed. |
50(1) La Cour a le pouvoir discrétionnaire de suspendre les procédures dans toute affaire : b) lorsque, pour quelque autre raison, l'intérêt de la justice l'exige. |
[3] The test for granting a stay pursuant to this section is whether it would be in the "interest of justice" to do so; see Pearson v. Canada, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1298.
[4] The Defendant submits that because the proceedings commenced pursuant to the Act involve the same parties and raise substantially the same issue, that is the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act, it would be in the "interest of justice" to stay further steps in the action until the Hamilton proceedings are resolved. The Defendant argues a stay would not cause significant prejudice to the Plaintiffs and would avoid the undesirable result of conflicting decisions between this Court and the Ontario Court of Justice.
[5] The Plaintiffs resist the Defendant's motion to stay. They say that this motion is equivalent to a motion to strike this action and that they have already successfully defended such motions to strike. Furthermore, they say that their personal freedoms are at stake and that it is in the interest of justice for this action to proceed.
[6] The Plaintiffs also argue that they are entitled to choose their forum. They claim that because their action in this Court involves the interpretation of a federal law, they are entitled to pursue the action here, notwithstanding the proceedings now before the court in Hamilton.
[7] I agree that the pursuit of charges under the Act raise similar issues to the issues raised in this action since they relate to the legality of provisions in the Act prohibiting the possession and use of certain controlled drugs and substances. The Plaintiffs claim that their rights to practice their religion are infringed by certain provisions of the Act.
[8] There may be some overlap between the evidence and legal arguments in the two cases. However, there is a difference between the Hamilton proceedings and this action which favours the position of the Plaintiffs.
[9] The Hamilton proceedings involve the prosecution of offences under the Act. They arise at the instigation of the Crown. Control of those proceedings is not in the hands of the Plaintiffs.
[10] The Ontario Court of Justice and the Federal Court of Canada are both courts of "competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for the purpose of determining whether a breach of constitutional rights has occurred. See Mooring v. Canada [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75 where the Supreme Court of Canada held that a court is only "a court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) where it has jurisdiction over i) the parties; ii) the subject matter, and iii) the remedy sought. Those conditions apply here.
[11] When there are multiple proceedings before different courts involving similar issues, there is a risk of contradictory judicial rulings. I have no means of predicting the ultimate outcome of either the proceedings in this Court or of those in the Ontario Court of Justice. It is open to the Crown to seek a stay of those proceedings if the Defendant wishes to deal with only one case at a time.
[12] It is noteworthy in the present motion that the Defendant argues a lack of "significant" prejudice to the Plaintiffs if the present action is stayed. The Plaintiffs say that they will be prejudiced if the stay is granted.
[13] While I do not accept the Plaintiffs' argument that a stay here is tantamount to striking their action, I am of the opinion that there is greater risk of prejudice to the Plaintiffs than to the Defendant if the matter is stayed. Indeed, that point is conceded by the Defendant as noted above.
[14] The interests of justice favour the continued conduct of this action in this Court. The Defendant's motion for a stay is dismissed and this action will proceed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Order of Justice Blanchard dated February 15, 2001.
[15] There will be no order as to costs.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
March 7, 2001