Chrétien v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 925

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 27, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2005 FC 925;(2005), 276 F.T.R. 138 (FC)

Chrétien v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 276 F.T.R. 138 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.012

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and The Honourable Justice John Gomery, Commissioner For the Commission of Inquiry Into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities (intervenor)

(T-404-05; 2005 FC 925)

Indexed As: Chrétien v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Aronovitch, Prothonotary

June 30, 2005.

Summary:

The Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities refused to recuse himself. The applicant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's refusal, alleging a denial of procedural fairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Commissioner moved for leave to intervene on the application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2005), 273 F.T.R. 219, allowed the motion in part. The applicant discontinued the judicial review application. The Commissioner brought a motion seeking to have the terms of his intervention broadened so that he could argue that the filing of the discontinuance was an abuse of process sufficient to set it aside. If the court so found, the Commissioner asked it to set aside the notice of discontinuance.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the motion.

Administrative Law - Topic 24

General - Abuse of process - What constitutes - The Commissioner of a federal Commission of Inquiry refused to recuse himself - The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal, alleging a denial of procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias - The Commissioner moved for leave to intervene on the application - A Prothonotary granted limited intervenor status - The Attorney General filed his factum and argued that the application was premature - The applicant acceded to that argument and discontinued his application - The Commissioner brought a motion seeking to have the terms of his intervention broadened so that he could argue that the filing of the discontinuance was an abuse of process sufficient to set it aside - If the court so found, he asked it to set aside the notice of discontinuance - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the motion - There were no new circumstances warranting an amendment or variance of the order granting the Commissioner leave to intervene - Alternatively, there was no jurisdiction to set aside the notice of discontinuance where it had complied with the Rules - Further, the discontinuance was not an abuse of process.

Administrative Law - Topic 2293

Natural justice - Unfairness - Abuse of power or abuse of process - [See Administrative Law - Topic 24 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3351

Judicial review - General - Practice - Intervenors - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 24 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7982

Public inquiries - Judicial review - Parties (incl. standing) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 24 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8843

Boards and tribunals - Capacity or status - To appear before the courts when its decisions are under judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 24 ].

Cases Noticed:

Chrétien v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 273 F.T.R. 219; 2005 FC 591, refd to. [para. 6].

Sawridge Indian Band et al. v. Canada (2001), 283 N.R. 116 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 1].

Zeneca Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (2000), 267 N.R. 6; 10 C.P.R.(4th) 146 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Drapeau v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1996), 119 F.T.R. 146 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

Molson Cos. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1985), 5 C.P.R.(3d) 287 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

WSM Inc. v. Radio IWC Ltd., [1986] F.C.J. No. 760, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

Waterside Ocean Navigation Co. v. International Navigation Ltd., [1983] F.C.J. No. 545 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 39].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Zündel v. Citron et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 255; 256 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

Jaouadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 257 F.T.R. 161 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

Air Canada v. Lorenz et al., [2000] 1 F.C. 494; 175 F.T.R. 211 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

Ontario College of Art et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 393; 11 O.R.(3d) 798 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

Krever Commission - see Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al.

Eckervogt et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Employment and Investment) (2004), 201 B.C.A.C. 302; 328 W.A.C. 302; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 685 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 7].

Zündel v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (2000), 264 N.R. 174; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 399 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 7].

Audet v. Canada (2002), 289 N.R. 382 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 8].

Noranda Forest Sales Inc. et al. v. PCL European Service Ltd. et al. (1996), 107 F.T.R. 186 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 9].

Ship Kronprinz, Re (1887), 12 App. Cas. 256 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 9].

Sauve v. Canada, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 497 (T.D.), dist. [para. 52].

Lifeview Emergency Services Ltd. v. Alberta Ambulance Operators' Association et al. (1995), 101 F.T.R. 43 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 12].

Counsel:

Peter Doody, for the applicant;

Brian Saunders and Joanna Hill, for the respondent;

H. Lorne Morphy, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This motion was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 27, 2005, by Aronovitch, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 30, 2005.