The Queen v. Bradley

J.-This is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, by which the Crown was ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of $1,366.10 and costs of suit.

The action was brought by the respondent under a reference from the Department of Finance, to recover from Her Majesty the Queen the sum of $3,235.35, being the balance for work and services performed by the respondent and accepted by Her Majesty, which work and services consisted of the shorthand reporting during the years 1892, 1893 and 1894, of 13,599 folios of evidence in connection with the Royal Commission upon the liquor traffic in Canada, and for editing and preparing for the press the evidence so taken.

During the progress of the work under the commission, the respondent was paid on account from time to J. time considerable sums of money, and at the close the commission there was due and unpaid, as claimed by the respondent, for reporting work, the sum $2,09.50, and for other work and services the sum $1,484.35, making together the amount claimed. The respondent was at the time in the employment of Her Majesty, as chief of the Hansard staff of reporters. of the House of Commons of Canada, and his engagement to do the work above mentioned on the said commission was secured by the late Zir Joseph Hickson, who was the chairman of the commission. The payments made to the respondent on account of thework performed by him, were by the cheques of thechairman, but the accounts were from time to time returned to the Department of Finance in the usual course for audit, the money for the payments beingsupplied by the Government of Canada.

The Crown did not and do not deny that the work was done by the respondent and accepted by the- Crown, but contended that if the Crown was legally liable for any s-um, the respondent should be paid at lower rates, viz :

For 10 copies...............

25 cents per folio. t 4..

.......

......

His Lordship, the Judge of the Exchequer Court, decided upon the evidence at the trial, that the claimant was entitled to be paid at the rates claimed by him, and with respect to the other sums claimed, he allowed $105, and $93.60 for editing work, but disallowed the remainder.

Certain other deductions were also made by the judge, the result being as set out in the QUEEN following statement:- To total account for reporting............ $3,780 50

Taschereau

" amount for editing .......................

105 00

"amount claimed for living allowance in paragraph 6 statement of claim .

1,036 00

$5,015 By amount paid on account of reporting work ............

...... ...

$1,751 00 amount of living allowance disallowed

1,036 00 cash from Finance Department .......

28 75 deduction of amount payable to other reporters ............

..........

833 25

3,649 00 $1,366 10 for which balance judgment was given.

As the judge of the court below has found upon the evidence that the respondent had been duly employed by Her Majesty to do the work aforesaid, and also held that the prices charged for the work done and accepted by Her Majesty were those claimed by the respondent, no question as to these matters arises on this appeal.

The Crown, at the trial sought to be relieved from liability to the respondent upon legal grounds, and urged that the respondent was not entitled to recover against Her Majesty, for the reason that he was barred in his action by the provisions of the 51st section of the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1888, 51 Vic. ch. 12. That section is as follows:- No extra salary or additional remuneration of any kind whatever, shall be paid to any deputy head, officer or employee in the Civil Service of Canada, or to any other person permanently employed in the public service.

His Lordship the udge of the Exchequer Court held against this contention of the Crown.

That is the only point on this appeal.

The respondent's contention that he does not, as an officer of the House of Commons, fall under that enactment, is unfounded. But we hold, with the Exchequer

-. Court, that the words " No extra salary, or additional remuneration," have reference only to payments which, if made, would be extra of those that an officer receives for his services within the scope of his ordinary duties, and additional to them. The Act intends that a civil servant who accepts an office at a fixed salary must not be paid anything extra for the duties of his office;

nothing extra for that, nothing additional to that. But if he is employed anywhere else or for any other purpose than what can legitimately have been expected or intended when he accepted office, the Act does not say that he will not be paid for it. These are other duties, requiring other pay, other remuneration, not extra duties, not extra or additional pay.

It is not an extra or an addition to his salary as an officer of the

House of Commons that the respondent claims.

And that is the only kind of claim that the Act prohibits.

The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Magee.