National Capital Commission (Plaintiff)
v.
Édouard Bourque & Paul Bourque (Defendants)
No. 1
Trial Division, Noël A.C.J.—Ottawa, August
19, 23, 1971.
Practice and Procedure—Judgment against National
Capital Commission as plaintiff in expropriation action—
Seizures by defendants' creditors—Application by plaintiff
for directions and for payment in—No jurisdiction—N.C.C.
not. the Crown—Federal Court Act, s. 17(3)(c)—Federal
Court Rules 441, 604.
Judgment was pronounced against plaintiff, the National
Capital Commission, in favour of defendants in an expro
priation action in this Court. Creditors of defendants served
plaintiff with seizures. Plaintiff applied under s. 17(3)(c) of
the Federal Court Act for directions as to whom and in what
amounts the balance owing on the judgment should be paid
and for leave to pay that sum into court.
Held, dismissing the application, s. 17(3)(c) of the Act,
and Rule 604 of the Rules are restricted to applications by
the Crown and do not apply to an agency of the Crown such
as plaintiff. The Rules for payment in only permit payment
in by a defendant.
APPLICATION.
Mrs. Eileen Mitchell Thomas, Q.C., for plain
tiff, applicant.
Austin O'Connor, Q.C., and L. P. Carr, for
defendants, contrâ.
NoEL A. C. J.—Plaintiff moves for a direc
tion, pursuant to s. 17(3)(c) of the Federal Court
Act, as to whom and in what amounts the
balance it owes on the judgment rendered by
this Court and the costs should be paid.
This motion is dismissed on the basis that s.
17(3)(c) applies only to the Crown and does not
apply to an agency of the Crown, such as the
plaintiff which, under s. 4(4) of its Act of incor
poration,' can be sued as an ordinary person
and which has been served with a number of
seizures emanating from creditors of the
defendants from Ontario as well as from
Quebec. It will have to deal with these matters
under whatever provincial laws are applicable.
It cannot avail itself either of Rule 604 of the
Rules of this Court (which corresponds to s. 24
of the Exchequer Court Act, now repealed)
which also is specifically restricted to the
Crown.
Counsel also requested that it be authorized
to pay into this Court the amount of its indebt
edness under the judgment of this Court. There
is a further difficulty here in that although the
position of the plaintiff in an expropriation
action is tantamount to that of a defendant in
the sense that it says I owe some money but it
should be restricted to what I believe is the
value of the defendant's property, our Rules for
the payment of money into Court 2 provide only
for defendants and not for any other party.
Motion is therefore dismissed without costs.
I National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-3.
2 Rules 441 to 445—ED.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.