Sovereign Life Insurance Co. v. Canada ( Minister of Finance )
T-3105-92
Nadon J.
29/8/95
27 pp.
Appeals and cross-appeal from orders by Associate Senior Prothonotary striking from appeal proceedings Her Majesty the Queen, Superintendent, ordering all documents considered by Minister, in reaching decision, be added to appeal case pursuant to R. 1305-Motion by respondent to stay order dated January 25, 1995 until appeals, cross-appeal disposed of-Applicant (Sovereign) chartered financial institution licensed for business in each province and territory of Canada-On December 21, 1992, pursuant to Insurance Companies Act, s. 680(2)(c), Minister of Finance directed Superintendent of Financial Institutions to take control of Sovereign-Notice of appeal filed by Sovereign-Dispute between parties as to contents of appeal case under R. 1305, true parties to appeal-Insurance Companies Act requiring Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) to monitor operations of insurance companies for purposes of detecting solvency, liquidity and compliance problems-OSFI commenced monitoring activities of Sovereign more intensely in spring of 1991-Superintendent reporting to Minister assets of Sovereign not sufficient, having regard to all circumstances, to give adequate protection to policyholders, creditors and Sovereign would not be able to pay liabilities due and payable-In January 1993, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta declaring Sovereign deemed to be insolvent under Winding-up Act, s. 160(1)-R. 336(5) providing for right of appeal in respect of orders or decisions made by prothonotary-Applicable standard of review of discretionary orders by prothonotary enunciated by Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425-Senior Prothonotary not making error in striking Superintendent from proceedings as decisions or reports of Superintendent not subject of appeals under Act, s. 702-R. 1305(b) using words "all papers relevant to the matter before the tribu-nal... that are in the possession or control of the tribunal" whereas R. 1402(1)(b) using words "all papers relevant to the matter that are in the possession or control of the tribunal"-No real difference between two-In addition to being relevant to issue before Tribunal, documents sought must have been presented or made available to Tribunal-Only documents falling under R. 1305(b) those submitted to Minister by Sovereign, Superintendent, Minister of State-Documents sought by Sovereign, not presented or made available to Minister, not "papers relevant to matter before Tribunal"-Senior Prothonotary erred in ordering documents not considered by Minister be added to appeal case-Order "clearly wrong"-Senior Prothonotary could not order addition of documents not before Minister-Only documents to be added to appeal case those marked as exhibits "A" and "B" of affidavit of Nick Le Pan-For Gap Rule to apply, there had to be "gap" in Rules-No gap in Rules-Discovery of documents in Federal Court limited to actions as defined in R. 2-Parties not allowed by Rules to seek production of documents in statutory appeal-Absence of discovery mechanism in Division C of Rules intentional, not omission-No gap allowing Court to refer to Alberta Rules-Senior Prothonotary erred in ordering respondent to file affidavit of documents-Gap Rule not allowing examination of representatives of Superintendent, Minister as no gap in Rules-Respondent would suffer prejudice should January 25, 1995 order not be stayed-Order stayed nunc pro tunc until appeals, cross-appeal disposed of-Insurance Companies Act, S.C. 1991, c. 47, ss. 680(2)(c), 702-Winding-up Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. W-11, s. 160(1)-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 2, 5, 336(5), 1305(b), 1402(1)(b).