Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20030416

Docket: T-109-03

Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 445

Vancouver, British Columbia, Wednesday, the 16^th day of April, 2003

Present:           Mr. John A. Hargrave, Prothonotary

BETWEEN:

                                                             REINHARD SPATLING

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                               SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA,

                                           PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA,

                                ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE WORKERS'

                                 COMPENSATION BOARD OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

                                                                                                                                               Respondents

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

HARGRAVE P.

[1]                 The Applicant, Mr. Spatling seeks, through judicial review directed against the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (also called the "WCB") two orders as to the production of documents, which production is governed by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B. 1996, c. 166, and three orders dealing first, with visitor signing-in procedures at the WCB office, second, with requiring WCB employees to wear name tags and third with requiring the employees of contractors of the WCB to wear name tags.

[2]                 By the present motion in writing the WCB seeks to have the proceeding, so far as it involves the WCB, struck out on the basis of various aspects of want of jurisdiction.

[3]                 From the material it appears that the Applicant was properly served, however he has not contested this motion. So that the Applicant may understand why he has no claim in the Federal Court against the Provincial WCB I have prepared these reasons.                

[4]                 Judicial review proceedings, while not generally subject to being struck out, may be struck out where they are "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success": see David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia Inc. [1995] 1 F.C. 588 at 600 (F.C.A.). Judicial review proceedings may be struck out for want of jurisdiction: see for example Mennes v. Canada (1998) 149 F.T.R. 317, a decision of Mr. Justice Richard, as he was then, affirmed on appeal (1999) 247 N.R. 295.

[5]                 While the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction over federal boards, commissions or other tribunals, that jurisdiction is limited to federal entities. The Federal Court has no jurisdiction over provincial boards, commissions or other such entities: see for example Martinoff v. Chief Provincial Firearms Officer (B.C.) (1994) 87 F.T.R. 220, C.P. Express v. Motor Carrier Comm. [1986] 1 F.C. 59 and Carruthers v. Therpeutic Abortion Committees (1983) 6 D.L.R. (4^th) 57 (F.C.A.).

[6]                 The British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board is a creature of provincial statute: see the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492 as amended. The Board is neither an emanation of the Queen in Right of Canada, nor does it exercise or purport to exercise jurisdiction or powers conferred by an act of parliament. Rather it is a body constituted under provincial law, administered by person appointed under the law of the province of British Columbia.

[7]                 The WCB, as a provincial entity, is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore that portion of this judicial review proceeding, directed against the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, is struck out.

[8]                 There being no jurisdiction, there is no scintilla of a cause of action and thus the striking out is without leave to amend: see Kiely v. The Queen (1987) 10 F.T.R. 10 at 11 and Larden v. Canada (1998) 145 F.T.R.140 at 149-150.

[9]                 In coming to this conclusion, that the action should be struck out for reason of want of jurisdiction over the WCB, I need not consider the additional arguments set out in the brief of the WCB, including want of jurisdiction over the subject matters put in issue by the Applicant against the WCB, or that the relief sought is not available, or that there has been a failure, on the part of the Applicant, to comply with the Federal Court Act and Rules.

[10]            No costs being sought, none are awarded.

(Sgd.) "John A. Hargrave"

    Prothonotary

                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             T-109-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           Reinhard Spatling v. Solicitor General of Canada et al.

                                                                                   

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Vancouver, BC

DATE OF HEARING:                       MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING

REASONS FOR ORDER :             HARGRAVE P.

DATED:                                                April 16, 2003

APPEARANCES:

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Reinhard Spatling (self-represented)     FOR APPLICANT

Rodney Yamanouchi                                                                       FOR RESPONDENTS

Gerald W. Massing                                                                         FOR RESPONDENT

Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia