Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 153
[598] Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant addressed this issue, that is the pursuit of
administrative law remedies, in closing submissions in July 2008 and again, pursuant to a Direction
of the Court, on September 17, 2008. The ground was well and truly covered, and each party was
given the opportunity to address jurisprudence of this Court and of the Federal Court of Appeal
which post-dates the decision in Grenier.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[599] On September 17, 2008, the Defendant particularized her submissions about the Plaintiffs’
failure to pursue administrative law remedies.
[600] She submitted that insofar as the Plaintiffs were challenging the reduction of the AAC for
FMU Y01, Y02 and Y03 from 350,000 m 3 to 128,000 m 3 , they should have proceeded by way of
judicial review. The Defendant also argued that insofar as the Plaintiffs considered this reduction in
the AAC to be a breach of the terms of an implied contract, they should have sought mandamus to
compel the Defendant to do something.
[601] The Defendant’s arguments in this regard are wholly unfounded.
[602] In this action, the Plaintiffs are asserting common law causes of action in negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary relationship and misfeasance in
public office. To the extent that the Defendant relies on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal
in Grenier, that reliance is misplaced. In no way are the Plaintiffs challenging the lawfulness of an
administrative decision.