Canadian Arctic Resources Committee Inc. v. Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. et al., (2000) 183 F.T.R. 267 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 12, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 183 F.T.R. 267 (TD)

Cdn. Arctic Resources v. Diavik Diamond (2000), 183 F.T.R. 267 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.043

Canadian Arctic Resources Committee Inc. (applicant) v. Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. and Aber Diamond Mines Ltd. (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(T-2127-99)

Indexed As: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee Inc. v. Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

June 6, 2000.

Summary:

The Minister of the Environment, acting under s. 23 of the Canadian Environ­mental Assessment Act, referred a diamond mining project in the Northwest Territories back to four responsible authorities for action. The decision was made after the preparation of a comprehensive study report by the four responsible authorities followed by an 18 month public consultation process. The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister's decision. They moved under rule 317 for the production of the material upon which the Minister of the Environment made his decision and also for the production of any material in the possession of three of the four responsible authorities who provided the comprehensive study report. The applicant also challenged a claim of immunity from production of certain documents certified by the clerk of the Privy Council under s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act as cabinet confi­dences.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion for production of documents.

Courts - Topic 4076

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Production of documents - [See Pollution Control - Topic 1852 ].

Crown - Topic 7220.05

Examination of public documents - Free­dom of information - Bars - Confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Can­ada, Trial Division, dis­cussed the dis­closure prohibition resulting from the is­suance of a certificate by the Clerk of the Privy Council, under s. 39(1) of the Can­ada Evidence Act, that informa­tion referred to in the certificate consti­tuted a confi­dence of the cabinet - See para­graphs 34 to 38.

Pollution Control - Topic 1852

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assess. & Review Process Guidelines Order (Can. Environ­mental Assess. Act) - Judicial review - The ap­plicants sought judicial review of a ministerial decision made under s. 23 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act on the faith of a comprehensive study report prepared by four responsible au­thorities under the Act, followed by 18 months of public consultation - The appli­cants moved under rule 317 of the Federal Court Rules for production of documents - They argued that: (1) the public registry constituted under s. 55 of the Act was incomplete; (2) there must be production of all material in the position of each decision maker including the responsible authorities; and (3) the Crown must pro­duce all the relevant material, even if that material or some relating factor was not considered by the decision maker or was overlooked - A Prothonotary of the Fed­eral Court of Canada, Trial Division, dis­missed the motion - See paragraphs 4 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al. (1996), 115 F.T.R. 81; 37 Admin. L.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1998), 130 F.T.R. 223 (T.D.), dist. [para. 17].

Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1998), 130 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.), dist. [para. 17].

Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1998), 150 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), revd. (2000), 248 N.R. 25 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 17].

Hiebert v. Price et al. (2000), 182 F.T.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Pathak, [1995] 2 F.C. 455; 180 N.R. 150 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

1185740 Ontario Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (1998), 150 F.T.R. 60 (T.D.), consd. [para. 18]; refd to. [para. 26].

1185740 Ontario Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2000), 247 N.R. 287 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Pathak v. Canadian Human Rights Com­mission et al. (1993), 63 F.T.R. 301 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 25].

Pathak v. Canadian Human Rights Com­mission et al. (1995), 180 N.R. 152 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Infor­mation Commissioner (Can.) et al. (1998), 135 F.T.R. 254 (T.D.), consd. [para. 29].

Beno v. Létourneau, J. et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 183 (T.D.), consd. [para. 30].

Canada (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) v. Central Cartage Co. et al. (No. 1), [1990] 2 F.C. 641; 109 N.R. 357 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498, refd to. [para. 38].

Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment) et al. (1998), 220 N.R. 41 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. et al. (1994), 72 F.T.R. 103 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

Willis v. Beauchamp (Earl) (1886), 11 P.D. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Babcock Allatt Ltd. (1983), 67 C.P.R.(2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1983), 72 C.P.R.(2d) 286 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, rule 317 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jacobs, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, [1970] Current Legal Prob­lems 21, p. 41 [para. 41].

Counsel:

Michael Wenig, for the applicant;

Cydney Elofson, for the respondent, Dia­vik Diamond Mines;

Mary Comeau, for the respondent, Aber Diamond Mines;

Patrick Hodgkinson, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Law Office of Michael Wenig, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicant;

Lawson, Lundell, Lawson & McIntosh, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent, Diavik Diamond Mines;

MacLeod Dixon, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent, Aber Diamond Mines;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This motion was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 12, 2000, by Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 6, 2000.