Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association et al. v. Canada, (2003) 229 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 18, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 229 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Assoc. v. Can. (2003), 229 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.045

Pauktuutit, Inuit Women's Association and Veronica Dewar (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(T-1523-01; 2003 FCT 165)

Indexed As: Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

February 13, 2003.

Summary:

The Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association claimed declaratory relief respecting its exclusion from the founding Board of Directors of the Federal Aboriginal Health Institute (renamed the Aboriginal Health Institute). The Crown applied to strike the application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 229 F.T.R. 8, allowed the application to proceed. The Association sought production of all cabinet and treasury board documents discussing formation of the Institute.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the Association's request for production.

Administrative Law - Topic 608

The hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal - To parties of material used or relied upon by the tribunal making its decision - The Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association claimed declaratory relief respecting its exclusion from the founding Board of Directors of the Federal Aboriginal Health Institute (renamed the Aboriginal Health Institute) - The Association sought production of all cabinet and treasury board documents discussing formation of the Institute - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the scope of discovery required of a tribunal under Federal Court Rule 317 - The prothonotary held that a request for documents from a tribunal must be specific in the sense of identifying the material requested - It must go beyond a general description - It may not be just a fishing expedition - The prothonotary dismissed the Association's motion, holding that its request in this case was too broad.

Cases Noticed:

Toft v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 521 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Asafov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 713 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Hiebert v. Price et al. (1999), 182 F.T.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

1185740 Ontario Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (1998), 150 F.T.R. 60 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 247 N.R. 287 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Pathak v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [1995] 2 F.C. 455; 180 N.R. 152 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 198 N.R. 237 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.) et al., [1998] 1 F.C. 337; 135 F.T.R. 254 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Unger v. Telus Enterprise Solutions Inc. [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 951 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canadian Arctic Resources Committee Inc. v. Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. et al. (2000), 183 F.T.R. 267 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Beno v. Létourneau, J. et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 183 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, rule 317 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Teressa Nahanee, for the plaintiffs;

John S. Tyhurst, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McIvor Nahanee Law Corporation, Merritt, British Columbia, for the plaintiffs;

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

This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 18, 2001, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 13, 2003.