Shiell v. Atomic Energy Control Bd., (1995) 98 F.T.R. 75 (TD)

Judge:Heald, D.J.
Court:Federal Court
Case Date:June 06, 1995
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:(1995), 98 F.T.R. 75 (TD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Shiell v. Atomic Energy Control Bd. (1995), 98 F.T.R. 75 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Maisie Shiell of Nipawin, in the Province of Saskatchewan (applicant) v. Atomic Energy Control Board and Cameco Corporation (respondents)

(T-1006-95)

Indexed As: Shiell v. Atomic Energy Control Board (Can.) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Heald, D.J.

June 29, 1995.

Summary:

Cameco Corporation owned a uranium mine and mill at Key Lake, Saskatchewan. The Atomic Energy Control Board approved an amendment to Cameco's operating license to permit the development of an in-pit tailings disposal facility using the "previous surround" concept. Shiell, a private citizen from Nipawin, Saskatchewan, sought mandamus, prohibition and an interim injunction against Cameco. Shiell's proceeding was converted into an application for judicial review of the Board's order. The respondents argued that Shiell lacked the necessary standing to make the application.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Shiell lacked standing and dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 205

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals - Status or standing - Cameco Corporation owned a uranium mine and mill at Key Lake, Saskatchewan - The Atomic Energy Control Board approved an amendment to Cameco's operating license to permit the development of an in-pit tailings disposal facility - Shiell, a private citizen from Nipawin, Saskatchewan, sought mandamus, prohibition and an interim injunction against Cameco - Shiell's proceeding was converted into an application for judicial review of the Board's order - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Shiell lacked standing because she did not have a direct personal interest in the proceedings.

Cases Noticed:

Shiell v. Amok Ltd. and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corp. et al. (1987), 58 Sask.R. 141; 27 Admin. L.R. 1 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 10].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321, folld. [para. 11].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 145; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2 Admin. L.R.(2d) 229; 5 C.P.C.(3d) 20; 16 Imm. L.R.(2d) 161, folld. [para. 12].

Counsel:

The applicant, Maisie Shiell, represented herself;

Mark Kindrachuk, for the respondent, Atomic Energy Control Board;

Robert Richards and Larry LeBlanc, for the respondent, Cameco Corp.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respondent, Atomic Energy Control Board;

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respondent, Cameco Corp.

This application was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on June 6, 1995, before Heald, D.J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 29, 1995.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP