Saskatchewan Action Foundation for the Environment Inc. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety), (1990) 86 Sask.R. 282 (QB)

• Judge: Dielschneider, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1990), 86 Sask.R. 282 (QB)

Sask. Action Fdn. v. Sask. (1990), 86 Sask.R. 282 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Saskatchewan Action Foundation for the Environment Inc. (applicant) v. Grant Milton Hodgins, Minister of the Environment and Public Safety, Saskatchewan (respondent) and Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Souris Basin Development Authority and Saferco Products Inc. (intervenors)

(No. 2356 A.D. 1990)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Action Foundation for the Environment Inc. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dielschneider, J.

August 22, 1990.

Summary:

An environmental group applied for an order compelling the Minister of the Environment and Public Safety to produce for public inspection information and documentation relating to four projects under development in Saskatchewan.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that an issue is moot when there is no live controversy - See paragraph 24.

Crown - Topic 2241

Crown privilege or prerogative - Production of documents - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the rules for the production of documents governing a proceeding in a court of law do not apply to a governmental agency - The court held that in the absence of any statutory law legislating otherwise, the common law did not oblige officials or officers of any of the levels of government in Saskatchewan to produce for inspection by anyone the public documents held by it; a Crown minister has the freedom at common law to decide what information should or should not be disclosed - The court further held that the Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act, which provided for disclosure of information and documents by the Minister, did not apply to compel him to release to an environmental group the documents upon which the minister based his decision permitting the development of the Rafferty/Alemeda Dam, the Island Falls reservoir, the Saferco fertilizer plant and the Meadow Lake Pulp Mill project - See paragraphs 3 to 5, 28 to 29.

Crown - Topic 7105

Examination of public documents - Common law right to inspect public documents - [See Crown - Topic 2241].

Practice - Topic 4579

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - State or public documents - [See Crown - Topic 2241].

Cases Noticed:

MacIntyre v. Attorney-General for Nova Scotia et al. (1982), 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385, not appld. [para. 4].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Manitoba, [1986] 2 W.W.R. 393; 37 Man.R.(2d) 117, refd to. [para. 23].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 24].

Chandler et al. v. Alberta Association of Architects et al., [1989] 6 W.W.R. 521; 99 N.R. 277; 100 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Parents for French-Saskatchewan et al. v. Weyburn School Board (1985), 44 Sask.R. 120, refd to. [para. 27].

Journal Printing Co. v. McVeity (1915), 21 D.L.R. 81 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Gillespie v. Cotsworth et al., [1920] 3 W.W.R. 440 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Hewitt, [1941] 2 W.W.R. 21 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Re Ristimaki v. Municipal Council of City of Timmins et al. (1974), 3 O.R.(2d) 609 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

McAuliffe v. Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police (1976), 9 O.R.(2d) 583 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Simpson v. Henderson (1977), 13 O.R.(2d) 322 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Newspapers Company Limited v. Government of Manitoba, [1986] 2 W.W.R. 673; 39 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 29].

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al. v. Dairy Producers Co-operative Ltd. et al. (1985), 37 Sask.R. 228, refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Assessment Act, S.S. 1979-80, c. E-10.1, sect. 7 [paras. 16, 33, 35-38]; sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15 [para. 31]; sect. 27 [para. 36].

Counsel:

H.R. Kloppenburg, for the applicant, Saskatchewan Action Foundation;

B.J. Hornsberger, for the Minister of the Environment and Public Safety for Saskatchewan;

B.D. Hunter, for Saskatchewan Power Corporation;

L.B. Leblanc and L.D. Andrychuk, for Saferco Products Inc.;

D.E. Gauley, Q.C., and R.G. Kennedy, for Souris Basin Development Authority.

This application was heard before Dielschneider, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, whose decision was delivered on August 22, 1990.