Zündel v. Citron et al., (2000) 256 N.R. 125 (FCA)

• Judge: Isaac, Robertson and Sexton, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 256 N.R. 125 (FCA)

Zündel v. Citron (2000), 256 N.R. 125 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. JN.021

Sabina Citron, Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations, the Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Canadian Jewish Congress and League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith (appellants) v. Ernst Zundel and Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. (respondents)

(A-258-99, A-269-99)

Indexed As: Zündel v. Citron et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Isaac, Robertson and Sexton, JJ.A.

May 18, 2000.

Summary:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made two evidentiary interlocutory rulings. Zündel applied for judicial review of these two rulings.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, held that because the court had con­cluded in a related application that a CHRT member who had participated in the two rulings was subject to a reasonable apprehen­sion of bias, the two rulings should be quashed. The complainant, among others, appealed, asserting that Zündel's judicial review applications were premature because they were interlocutory decisions made during the course of the proceedings.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Editor's Note: For related cases see 256 N.R. 201; 179 F.T.R. 261; 165 F.T.R. 113; 40 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161; 38 O.A.C. 51; 37 O.A.C. 354; 18 O.A.C. 161; 16 O.A.C. 244.

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - General - Interim appli­cations or rulings - In a human rights complaint hearing, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) ruled that Zündel's counsel could not cross-examine a witness regarding the "truth" of certain statements and refused to qualify Zündel's witness as an expert - Zündel applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that because the court had concluded in a related appli­cation that a CHRT member who had participated in the two rulings was subject to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the two rulings should be quashed - The com­plainant, among others, appealed, asserting that Zündel's judicial review applications were premature because they were inter­locutory decisions made during the course of the proceedings - Zündel asserted that the two rulings constituted "special circum­stances" that warranted immediate judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the judicial review applications were premature.

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - General - Interim appli­cations or rulings - In a human rights complaint hearing, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made two evidentiary interlocutory decisions - Zündel applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that because the court had concluded in a related application that a CHRT member who had participated in the two rulings was subject to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the two rulings should be quashed - The complainant, among others, appealed, asserting that Zündel's judicial review applications were premature because they were interlocutory decisions - Zündel asserted that if he had waited until the CHRT made a final decision, the limi­tation period under s. 18(2) of the Federal Court Act would have expired - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal held that the time period prescribed in s. 18.1(2) did not begin to run until the proceedings's final decision was rendered - See paragraphs 16 to 17.

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - General - Interim appli­cations or rulings - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "[a]s a general rule, absent jurisdictional issues, rulings made during the course of a tribunal proceeding should not be challenged until the tri­bunal's proceedings have been completed." - See paragraph 10.

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review- General - Practice - Time for application - [See all Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Courts - Topic 4057

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Judicial review of inter­locutory decisions - [See all Administra­tive Law - Topic 3220 ].

Courts -Topic 4071.3

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review application - Time for - [See all Adminis­trative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Words and Phrases

Decision - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "de­cision" as found in s. 18.1(2) of the Fed­eral Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 - See paragraph 17.

Cases Noticed:

Danmor Shoe Co., Re, [1974] F.C. 22; 1 N.R. 422 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schnurer Estate, [1997] 2 F.C. 545; 208 N.R. 339 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 11, foot­note 9].

Szczecka v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 170 N.R. 58; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 333 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 11].

People First of Ontario et al. v. Regional Coroner of Niagra et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 187; 87 D.L.R.(4th) 765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26; 19 O.R.(3d) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 13].

Pfeiffer v. Redling et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 584; 116 F.T.R. 173 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 15].

Doman v. British Columbia Securities Commission (1995), 34 Admin. L.R.(2d) 102 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15, foot­note 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(2) [para. 16].

Counsel:

Jane S. Bailey, for the appellants, Sabina Citron and the Canadian Holocaust Re­membrance Association;

Andrew A. Weretelnyk, for the appellant, Toronto Mayor's Committee on Com­munity and Race Relations;

Richard Kramer, for the appellant, At­torney General of Canada;

René Duval, for the appellant, Canadian Human Rights Commission;

Robyn M. Bell, for the appellant, Simon Weisenthal Centre;

Joel Richler and Judy Chan, for the appel­lant, Canadian Jewish Congress;

Marvin Kurz, for the appellant, League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith;

Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka, for the respondent, Ernst Zündel;

Gregory Rhone, for the respondent, Ca­nadian Association for Free Expression Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Tory, Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants, Sabina Citron and the Canadian Holo­caust Remembrance Association;

Andrew A. Weretelnyk, City of Toronto, Legal Department, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Toronto Mayor's Com­mittee on Community and Race Re­lations;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Attorney General of Canada;

Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Ca­nadian Human Rights Commission;

Bennett Jones, for the appellant, Simon Weisenthal Centre;

Tory, Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Ca­nadian Jewish Congress;

Dale Streiman & Kurz, for the appellant, League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith;

Douglas Christie, Victoria, British Colum­bia, for the respondent, Ernst Zündel;

Barbara Kulaszka, for the respondent, Ernst Zündel;

Gregory Rhone, Etobicoke, Ontario, for the respondent, Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 4, 2000, before Isaac, Robertson and Sexton, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On May 18, 2000, Sexton, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.