Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Banff National Park (Superintendent) et al., (1994) 77 F.T.R. 218 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 18, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 77 F.T.R. 218 (TD)

Cdn. Parks v. Banff Nat. Park (1994), 77 F.T.R. 218 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Sunshine Village Corporation (applicant) v. Superintendent of Banff National Park, Director of the Western Region of Parks Canada, The Minister of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (respondents)

(T-137-94)

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (applicant) v. Superintendent of Banff National Park, Director of the Western Region of Parks Canada, The Minister of Environment, The Secretary of State, The Chief Environmental Sciences Division, Canadian Parks Service Western Region, The Attorney General of Canada and Sunshine Village Corporation (respondents)

(T-2505-93)

Indexed As: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Banff National Park (Superintendent) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

April 26, 1994.

Summary:

Sunshine Village Corp. operated recreational skiing facilities on leased land in Banff National Park. Certain ministerial decisions were made in relation to the expansion of the skiing facilities. Applications for judicial review were filed by Sunshine Village Corp. (T-137-94) and by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (T-2505-93). Pursuant to a court order, the applications were to be heard together, on an expedited basis, a schedule was established for the filing of materials and a hearing date was set. After the expedited hearing schedule was established, Sunshine Village Corp. obtained an affidavit from the Minister of the Environment respecting his intentions in approving the development plan for the area. Sunshine Village Corp. applied for leave to file the affidavit beyond the date fixed by the court schedule.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application for leave for late filing of the affidavit.

Practice - Topic 3680

Evidence - Affidavits - Use of - Leave to offer affidavit evidence - Two judicial review applications were filed challenging ministerial decisions respecting the expansion of skiing facilities in a national park - Pursuant to a court order, a schedule was established for the filing of materials and a hearing date was set - After the schedule was established, one of the applicants (Sunshine) obtained an affidavit from the Minister of the Environment respecting his intentions in approving the development plan for the area - Sunshine applied for leave to file the affidavit beyond the date fixed by the earlier court order - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant leave for late filing, where the affidavit would add nothing of significance for the court in dealing with the judicial review applications.

Cases Noticed:

Bell Canada v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 356; 39 F.T.R. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 56; 12 A.R. 449; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Ferguson Bus Lines Ltd. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1374, [1990] 2 F.C. 586; 108 N.R. 293 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Prouvost S.A. v. Munsingwear Inc., [1992] 2 F.C. 541; 141 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 332(1) [para. 12].

Counsel:

John Hunter, for the applicant, Sunshine Village Corp.;

Stewart A.G. Elgie, for the applicant, Canadian Parks;

Kirk Lambrecht, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant, Sunshine Village;

Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant, Canadian Parks;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

These applications were heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 18, 1994, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 26, 1994.