Burroughs v. The Queen

J.H. R. BURROUGHS et al. (CLAIMANTS) APPELLANTS; *Nov. 5.

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (DE- RESPONDENT. *April 4.

FENDANT)

...........................

ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA. On a claim brought by the Board of License Commissioners appointed under the Liquor License Act, 1883, for moneys paid out by them to license inspectors with the approval of the Department of Inland Revenue, but which were found to be afterwards in excess of the salaries which two years later were fixed by Order in Council under section 6 of the said Liquor License Act, 1883. Held, affirming the judgment of the Exchequer Court, that the Crown could not be held liable for any sum in excess of the salary fixed and approved of by the Governor General in Council. The Liquor License Act, 1883, section 6.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1) dismissing the claimants' claim for $1,578.76.

The action was brought by the appellants to recover the sum of $1,578.76 which they alleged was due to them -from the G-overnment of Canada; the claim therefor arose under the following circumstances:- Under the Liquor License Act, 1883, of Canada, the appellants were appointed the Board of Commissioners for the license district of the city of Quebec, and, they continued in that office and capacity from the 19th day of February, 1884, until the 23rd day of December,. 1885, at which time, the act having shortly before that * PRESENT :-Sir W.

date been declared ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the appellants ceased to act as commissioners. T By the 6th section of the act it is provided that " A chief inspector of licenses, and one or more inspectors, shall be appointed by the Board of License Commissioners from time to time for each district, as the board may see fit, and each license inspector shall, before entering upon his duties, give such security as the board may require for the due performance of his duties, and for the payment over of all sums of money received by him under the provisions of this act; and the salary of the inspectors shall be fixed by the board, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council." Under this section the appellants appointed a chief inspector at a salary of $1,200 and two assistant inspectors at $400 each, per annum, and those inspectors were paid at these rates up to the time when the commissioners ceased to hold office.

The said salaries which the appellants so fixed for the inspectors were not at the time they were determined upon approved of by the Governor in Council, nor did the appellants at any time submit the salaries to the Governor in Council for approval, but the appellants commenced and continued to pay the inspectors their salaries at the said rate until the month of September, 1885, when they were notified that an order in council had been passed on the 5th September fixing the rates at which inspectors were entitled to be paid, which was lower than the salaries which the appellants had been paying the said inspectors. All the moneys which the appellants had received in the administration of the Liquor License Act during their tenure of office was paid into the license fund and amounted to the sum of $4,480, and it was out this fund, under subsection 2 of section 56 of the act, that the salaries and expenses of the commissioners and inspectors and other expenses were to be paid, and it appears that the appellants had as a matter of fact paid to the inspectors for their salaries the sum of $3,431.42 which was the amount due them at the rates which the appellants had fixed for them.

The amount of license fund was not sufficient to cover all the claims on that fund for salaries and expeiises under the requirements of the. order in council.

When the operations under the act came to be wound up, the Government of Canada appropriated a sum of $726.28 to be added to the amount received by the ap-. pellants into the license fund, which made a total of $5,206.23, available for salaries and expenses; and the Department of Inland Revenue acting within the scope of the order in council of the 5th September, 1885, apportioned the said sum as follows: $2,521.33 for the appellants as commissioners, $1,852.66 for the inspectors and the sum of $832.24 for contingencies. The sum which the appellants had already paid to the inspectors, namely, $3,431.42 was more than the Department of Inland Revenue was empowered under the said order in council to allow by the sum of $1,578.76, and the appellants found that out of the $5,206.23 there would only be $942.55 left to apply upon their own salaries, instead of the $2,521.33 which the department had appropriated for their payment.

The appellants then applied to the government for payment of this difference of $1,578.76, and upon payment being refused they applied for and obtained a reference of their claim to the Exchequer Court under 50 and 51 Vic. ch. 16, sec. 23, and on the 18th day of November, 1890, the case came on for trial at the city of Quebec before the judge of the Exchequer Court and judgment was afterwards rendered whereby the appellants' action was dismissed.

Sir W. J. C.J. was of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed but without costs.

J. (Oral)-The act under which the appellant was appointed having been declared by this court and the Privy Council ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada, this petition of right is not maintainable and the appeal must be dismissed.

J.-Les appelants formant le bureau des commissaires pour 1'octroi des licences pour la vente des liqueurs, en vertu de l'acte des licences du Canada, de 1883, r6clament la somme de $1,578.76 comme leur 6tant due par Sa Majest6 pour les causes suivantes: Nommbs commissaires des licences pour le district de licence de la cit6 de Qu6bec, le 19 f&vrier 1884, les appelants en out rempli toutes les fonctions et devoirs, jusqu'au 23 d6cembre 1885, 6poque & laquelle l'acte en question,fut par jugement du Conseil priv6, d~clar6 inconstitutionnel.

Les appelants avaient t6 nommbs commissaires des licences en vertu de la sec. de l'acte des licences, d6clarant que:

En vertu de cette section les commissaires nommarent inspecteur en chef avec un salaire de $1,200 et deux assistants inspebteurs avec un salaire de $400 chacun, par ann6, et ces inspecteurs ont t6 pay~s A ces taux jus- Foamier j. qu'au 10 septembre 1885, 6poque A laquelle les salaires fixes par les commissaires furent r6duits par ordre en conseil.

Par lettre du 14 mars 1884, le ministre du revenu de 1'int6rieur avait t6 inform6 de ces nominations et du montant des salaires fix6s qui seraient pay6s mensuellement pour 1'inspecteur et toutes les semaines pour ses assistants, avec les fonds qui se trouveraient entre les mains des commissaires, A moins d'instructions contraires. Le d6partement n'ayant donn6 aucune instruction A ce sujet, ces salaires furent pay6s aux taux fixes. Le aost 1884, les commissaires furent inform6s par le d6partement qu'il n'6tait pas probable que le G-ouverneur en conseil s'occuperait de la consid~ration des r~glements adopt6s en vertu de la 56e section de 1'acte avant que sa validit6 n'eit t6 d6cid6e par la cour Supr~me.

Le 7 aost 1885, apris la d6cision de la cour Supr~me, les commissaires inform~rent le d6partement, qu'ils continueraient leurs officiers en fonctions, ce qui fut approuv6 par le d6partement, par lettre en date du aoit 1885. En cons6quence, les commissaires continuerent A payer les d6penses de leur bureau et les salaires de leurs officiers, aux taux fix6s par eux, jusqu'au 10 septembre 1885, 6poque A laquelle is furent notifi6s par le d6partement qu'un ordre en conseil fixant et r6duisant les salaires des inspecteurs avait td adopt6. Les inspecteurs furent ensuite paybs suivant le montant fix6 par cet ordre en conseil jusqu'au 23 d6cembre 1885, 6poque laquelle tous procd6s pour mettre A effet l'acte en question furent abandonn6s en cons6quence de la decision du Conseil priv&.

En vertu de la sec. 61, les commissaires 6taient tenus de faire rapport an ministre du revenu de 1'int~rieur de toutes leurs oprations pour la mise A ex6cution de HE 1'acte des licences; et pendant tout le temps que le dit acte a td en force, les dits commissaires ont constam- Fournier J. ment tenu le d6partement au fait de toutes leurs op6rations.

Depuis le 16 f6vrier 1884 au 25 d6cembre 1885, le montant de leurs d6penses s'est 61ev6 aux sommes suivantes:- Salaires de 1'inspecteur et de ses assistants..................

$3,431 62

Diverses d6penses

........... .....

832 24

Salaires des commissaires............

2,513 34

$6,777 20

Les d6penses diverses furent accord6es par l'ordre en conseil, mais le salaire de 1'inspecteur en chef et de ses assistants fut r6duit A $1,852.66 au lieu de $3,431.42 qui avait e& fix6 par les commissaires, ce qui fait une diff6rence de $1,57876 entre le montant r6ellement pay6 et d6bours6 par les commissaires et celui fix6 par 1'ordre en conseil du gouvernement.

Gette diff6rence de $1,578.76 ayant td retranch6e du montant accord6 comme salaire aux commissaires,

$2,521.33, il n'est rest6 A ceux-ci que $942.57 & compte de leur salaire.

Leur action a pour but d'tre pay~s de la somme de

$1,578.76 dbourshe et pay6e par eux pour la mise A ex6cution de l'acte des licences; en outre de ce qu'ils out requ -compte de leur salaire.

L'honorable juge de la cour de l'Echiquier a renvoye la p6tition de droit des appelants en se fondant sur la sec. 6 dePacte des licences de 1883, cit6e plus haut, contenant la d6claration suivante: " And the salary of the inspectors shall be fixed by the board subject to the approval of the Governor in council."

Daprs lexpos des faits ci-dessus, il est clair que les commissaires ont inform6 r6gulibrement le d6partement Fournier J. de toutes leurs actions au sujet de la mise en force de l'acte, qu'ils lui ont donn6 information du montant fix6 pour le salaire des inspecteurs et qu'ils out aussi demand6 l'approbation requise par la sec. de l'acte, entin que toute leur conduite a 6t6 marqu6e au coin de la prudence, du jugement et de la plus grande bonne foi dans tons leurs proc6d6s.

Ne recevant pas de r~ponse an sujet du salaire de leurs officiers ils continubrent de les payer aux taux fix6s par eux, dont ils avaient inform6 le gouvernement lui rendant compte de leurs d~penses. Non seulement les commissaires avaient raison de prendre le long silence du gouvernement A ce sujet comme une preuve d'approbation du taux fix6 par eux, mais 1'ayant inform6 apr~s la d6cision de la cour SuprAme qu'ils entendaient maintenir en office leurs officiers, ils regurent une lettre en date du 14 aoit 1885, les informant que leur d6cision A cet 6gard 6tait approuv6e.

N'tait-ce pas une approbation formelle et une ratification de la fixation du salaire ? Si le gouvernement avait en l'intention alors de ne pas confirmer les salaires n'6tait-il pas absolument de son devoir d'en informer les commissaires et de leur dire en mime temps qu'il consentait au maintien des officiers, mais A un taux moins 6lev6. Les commissaires pas plus que les officiers ne pouvaient s'imaginer que le gouvernement avait l'intention de les conserver, mais a un taux r6duit dont il ne fut nullement alors question.

Ces officiers out. pr6sumer que puisque le gouvernement retenait leurs services, c'6tait aux m~mes conditions que par le pass6, c'est-A-dire au salaire fix6 par les commissaires qui leur avait 6t0 pay6 jusqu'alors sans aucune difficult6. Malheureusement l'approbation du Gouverneur en conseil requise par la section 6 de 1'acte des licences de 1883, pour la d6termination3u -s des salaires n'ayant pas t6 donn6e, je me vois bien A regret force de d6clarer que cette formalit6 6tait n6cessaire pour 16gitimer la r6clamation du salaire. Fournier J. Cependant les commissaires ayant fait toutes les d6marches n6cessaires pour l'obtenir ce n'est pas eux d'en supporter la responsabilit6, mais au ministre du revenu de l'int6rieur qui a n6glig6 de se conformer A la demande des commissaires.

II faut esp6rer que le d6partement indemnisera les commissaires d'une perte qu'ils ne devraient pas subir.

J.-I am of opinion that this petition right was rightly dismissed.

I have come to that determination not without regret, as it is clearly in evidence that the petitioners were certainly led into error by the officers of the Crown, and paid these inspectors solely with the intention of effectually putting an act of Parliament into force, in performance of their duties. I think in law, however, that they have no right of action, though their claim should, in my opinion, receive a favourable consideration from the Crown. I agree with the judgment of the Exchequer Court.

The salaries of the inspectors could only become a charge upon the license fund after the sanction and approval of the Governor in Council of such salaries had been obtained therefor, and there is no evidence that the salaries as fixed by the appellants were ever approved of as required by the statute, so that any sums of money paid by the appellants without such approval were paid illegally, and the appellants must take the consequences of their illegal action.

The appellants were expressly warned shortly after their appointment by letter of the commissioner of Inland Revenue that in fixing the salaries of the inspecthe salaries so fixed were subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and that when the salaries should be submitted to the department, the Governor in Council would consider the matter; and more espe- J.

cially were the appellants notified by the letter of the commissioner of Inland Revenue of the 6th August, 1884, to the appellants, wherein amongst other things the commissioner says, " In districts where the revenue accrued upon applications for licenses and license fees is sufficient to meet all anticipated expenditure, the chairman of such boards will probably feel little hesitation in accepting the responsibility of authorizing disbursements on account of the expenses of the board and of the salaries and expenses of the inspectors, always bearing in mind that the inspector's salary is subject ultimately to the approval of the Governor in Council, and therefore that any advance on account of it must leave a reasonable margin for any possible divergence of view between the board and His Excelrendered."

The appellants cannot now be allowed to say that they never had any notification from the Department of Inland Revenue as to the fixing of the salaries even if such notification were necessary. And the fact that the appellants went on for nearly the whole time of their official tenure paying the salaries to the inspectors as fixed by themselves, with the knowledge of the Department of Inland Revenue, cannot, it seems to me clear, be construed into an approval of their conduct under the statute so as to bind the Crown.

The approval as required by the 6th section of the statute cannot be inferred from the mere inaction or silence of the Minister of Inland Revenue. That section requires actual approval by the Governor in Council. The minister, therefore, in fact had no authority under the statute to approve, and as the learned judge in the court below puts it, what he could not do directly he could not be held to have done indirectly.

Queen v. McGreevy (1) and Queen v. Smith

Neither can the delay which took place between the time when the appellants first notified the department

J. that they had fixed the salaries and the time when the salaries were fixed and sanctioned by the Governor in Council, be taken to be an admission on the part of the Crown that the salaries fixed by the commissioners had the approval of the Crown.

J. concurred.

Appeal dismissed without costs.

. Henderson.

O'Connor, Hogg - Balderson.

XX.]