2013 NBCA 40, 2013 NBCA 40
Opinion
COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUR D’APPEL DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 18-12-CA EVELYN REBECCA GREENE (Applicant) APPELLANT EVELYN REBECCA GREENE (Requérante) APPELANTE - and - - et - MARIE-CLAUDE BLAIS, ATTORNEY GENERALOF NEW BRUNSWICK (Respondent) RESPONDENT MARIE-CLAUDE BLAIS, PROCUREUREGÉNÉRALE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK (Intimé
e) INTIMÉE Greene v. Blais, Attorney General of New Brunswick, 2013 NBCA 40 Greene c.
Blais, Procureure générale du Nouveau-Brunswick, 2013 NBCA 40 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Richard CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Richard Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: January 16, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 16 janvier 2012 History of case: Decision under appeal: 2012 NBQB 15 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Historique de la cause : Décision frappée d’appel : 2012 NBQB 15 , 2012 NBBR 15 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.
Appeal heard: May 23, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 23 mai 2013 Judgment rendered: June 20, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 20 juin 2013
Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Evelyn Rebecca Greene appeared in person For the respondent: William E. Gould Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : Evelyn Rebecca Greene a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : William E. Gould THE COURT The appeal is dismissed. LA COUR Rejette l’appel. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] By Notice of Application, Evelyn Rebecca Greene applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for various declaratory relief aimed primarily at having s. 66 of the Mental Health Act , R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-10 (the Act ), declared invalid. This
section effectively: (1) prohibits the taking or instituting of legal proceedings against the personnel of a psychiatric facility without the consent of the Attorney General; (2) sets a prescription period for the commencement of a prosecution for anything done or omitted to be done in pursuance of the Act ; and (3) bars any action against a psychiatric facility or any of its officers, employees or servants for any tort by any patient. [ 2 ] By Notice of Motion, Ms.
Greene sought an order suspending the application of s. 66(1) of the Act pending the determination of her application or, alternatively, an order forcing the Attorney General to provide the requisite consent. She also sought an order requiring the Attorney General to pay the fees and disbursements of counsel of her own choosing and to compensate her for certain expenses and disbursements already incurred. [ 3 ] On January 16, 2012, a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed Ms. Greene’s motion for “state-funded counsel”: 2012 NBQB 15 , 382 N.B.R. (2d) 322. The judge ruled that the other matters raised in Ms.
Greene’s motion were best left to be determined following the hearing of her application. [ 4 ] Ms. Greene appeals the judge’s refusal to order the Attorney General to pay for her to retain counsel. She raises a total of 21 grounds and sub-grounds of appeal. However, her appeal can be decided, on application of the governing standard of review, without a detailed review of all grounds. [ 5 ] It is difficult to decipher from the materials whether Ms. Greene was seeking the appointment of “state-funded counsel” or whether she was asking for “advance costs”.
The motion judge considered it to be the latter, and it is now common ground that this was the correct
interpretation of the materials filed. [ 6 ] The award of advance costs is discretionary relief and such a decision must be given deference unless “it is founded on an error of law, an error in the application of the governing principles or a palpable and overriding error in the assessment of the evidence”: Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v. Beaverbrook Art Gallery , 2006 NBCA 75 , 302 N.B.R. (2d) 161, at para. 4 , referring to British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanogan Indian Band , 2003 SCC 71 , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371.
[ 7 ] There are certain prerequisites that must be met before a court can order advance costs. These are set out in the Okanogan case and repeated in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue) , 2007 SCC 2 , [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38. Generally stated, they are: (1) impecuniosity; (2) a meritorious case; and (3) special circumstances making this extraordinary exercise of the court's power appropriate.
Each one of these criteria must be met. [ 8 ] In order to meet the third prerequisite, the case must fall within the ambit of those "rare and exceptional" ones, in the sense that (1) the failure to grant the advance costs would create an injustice that would relate both to Ms.
Green and to the public at large, (2) it be in the interests of justice that the costs be awarded after all other possible funding options have been explored, (3) the matter not be otherwise resolvable, and, (4) the court can ensure that the award is workable: Little Sisters at paras. 38- 42. [ 9 ] In the present case, the motion judge essentially found that the third prerequisite had not been met. We find no error in this conclusion. Since all three of the prerequisites must be met before a judge can order advance costs, it is unnecessary to look at the other elements of the test.
This said, counsel for the Attorney General conceded, at the hearing of the appeal, that the motion judge focused on the wrong question in examining the “meritorious case” component of the prerequisites. Nevertheless, considering the findings on the third prerequisite, the law requires us to give deference to the judge’s refusal to grant the relief Ms. Greene was seeking. [ 10 ] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Costs were not sought; therefore, none are ordered. ________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. ________________________________ J.T.
ROBERTSON, J.A. ________________________________ J.C. MARC RICHARD, J.A.
COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUR D’APPEL DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 18-12-CA EVELYN REBECCA GREENE (Applicant) APPELLANT EVELYN REBECCA GREENE (Requérante) APPELANTE - and - - et -
MARIE-CLAUDE BLAIS, ATTORNEY GENERALOF NEW BRUNSWICK (Respondent) RESPONDENT MARIE-CLAUDE BLAIS, PROCUREUREGÉNÉRALE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK (Intimé
e) INTIMÉE Greene v. Blais, Attorney General of New Brunswick, 2013 NBCA 40 Greene c.
Blais, Procureure générale du Nouveau-Brunswick, 2013 NBCA 40 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Richard CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Richard Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: January 16, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 16 janvier 2012 History of case: Decision under appeal: 2012 NBQB 15 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Historique de la cause : Décision frappée d’appel : 2012 NBQB 15 , 2012 NBBR 15 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.
Appeal heard: May 23, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 23 mai 2013 Judgment rendered: June 20, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 20 juin 2013 Date of Corrigendum: June 26, 2013 Date de l’avis de correction : Le 26 juin 2013
Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Evelyn Rebecca Greene appeared in person For the respondent: William E. Gould Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : Evelyn Rebecca Greene a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : William E. Gould THE COURT The appeal is dismissed. LA COUR Rejette l’appel. CORRIGENDUM THE COURT Please note that in paragraph 8 of the original judgment, as well as paragraphs 4 and 8 of the translation, the name “Green” where it appears should be replaced by “Greene”.
Loading document…