Reese et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) et al., (1992) 133 A.R. 127 (QB)

• Judge: McDonald, J.
• Court: Court of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Friday August 28, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 133 A.R. 127 (QB);1992 CanLII 2825 (AB QB);[1993] 1 WWR 450;133 AR 127;5 Alta LR (3d) 40;9 CELR (2d) 65;[1992] CarswellAlta 138;[1992] AJ No 745 (QL);13 CPC (3d) 323

Reese v. Alta. (1992), 133 A.R. 127 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Peter Reese, Alberta Wilderness Association, Peace River Environmental Society and Sierra Club of Western Canada (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, The Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife and Daishowa Canada Co. Ltd. (respondents)

(Action No. 9003-23400)

Indexed As: Reese et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

McDonald, J.

August 28, 1992.

Summary:

The Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wild­life and a pulp and paper manufacturer entered into an Forest Management Agree­ment under s. 16(1) of the Forests Act. One individual and three organizations applied under Part 56.1 of the Rules of Court for judicial review of the Minister's decision, claiming the decision was ultra vires and void. The Minister claimed that the oppo­nents, as strangers, lacked standing to apply for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 123 A.R. 241; 85 Alta. L.R.(2d) 153; 87 D.L.R.(4th) 1, held that the opponents had standing, but dis­missed the application on the merits. The successful defendants applied for costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded costs accordingly.

Practice - Topic 7020

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment - Successful party - General prin­ciples - Three environmental groups and an individual applied for judicial review of a forest management agreement between the Minister and a pulp and paper com­pany - The company was served with the originating notice and applied to be named as a respondent - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the company was entitled to recover costs, although it had applied to be added as a party - The policy considerations which required mod­eration in fixing costs to the Crown, did not apply in the case of the company which acted in good faith in contracting with the Crown - See paragraphs 54 to 57.

Practice - Topic 7035

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment - The Crown or government bodies - Three environmental protection organiz­ations and an individual unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of a forest management agreement between the Min­ister and a pulp and paper company - The unsuccessful applicants sought relief from payment of costs on the ground that the application was in the public interest - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­cussed the discretion of the court to award or decline to award costs to the Crown and a party contracting with the Crown - See paragraphs 3 to 16.

Practice - Topic 7035

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment - The Crown or government bodies - Public interest groups unsuccessfully sought judicial review of a forest manage­ment agreement between the Minister and a pulp and paper industry - The hearings involved numerous days of viva voce testimony by several experts - The ap­plicants' case was weak and contained many extraneous political elements, but was brought in good faith - The Crown claimed substantial costs (triple Column 6) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that an award of heavy costs could discourage public interest groups from challenging executive acts in appropriate cases - The court awarded the Crown costs on Column 3 in recognition of the complexity of the case and the policy considerations - See paragraphs 3 to 21.

Practice - Topic 7117

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Lump sum in lieu of taxed costs - Environmental groups unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of a forest management agreement between the Min­ister and a pulp and paper company - Lengthy complex case, involving numerous expert witnesses - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that lump sum costs were not appropriate, where the unsuc­cessful applicants were entitled to know in detail how the award was arrived at - See paragraph 58.

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disburse­ments - Environmental groups unsuccess­fully sought judicial review of a forest management agreement between the Min­ister and a pulp and paper company - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed charges for photocopying claimed by the Crown - See paragraphs 39 to 51.

Cases Noticed:

Southeast Alaskan Conservation Council Inc. v. State of Alaska (1983), 665 P.(2d) 544 (Alaska S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc. v. Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd. (1991), 100 A.L.R. 568 (Aust. F.C., Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

Ukrainian (Edmonton) Credit Union Ltd. v. 258753 Alberta Ltd., Gourdine and Olsen (1984), 60 A.R. 148; 39 Alta. L.R.(2d) 310; 47 C.P.C. 203 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Credit Foncier Trust Co. v. Hornigold (1984), 59 A.R. 103; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Richards and Alberta Power (1986), 69 A.R. 139; 43 Alta. L.R.(2d) 310; 34 L.C.R. 293 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 600(1), rule 600(1)(a)(iii) [para. 24]; rule 605(3) [para. 41]; schedule C [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Reform Commission (Ont.), Report on the Law of Standing (1989), c. 6 [para. 12].

Stevenson and Côté, Civil Practice Guide (1989), p. 1181 [para. 41]; 1185 [para. 44].

Counsel:

E.P. Groody, for the applicants;

A. Moen, for the Crown;

P.G. Landry, for Daishowa.

This application was heard before McDonald, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following judgment on August 28, 1992.