Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., (1998) 157 F.T.R. 123 (TD)

• Judge: Evans, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 10, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 157 F.T.R. 123 (TD)

Sierra Club of Can. v. Can. (1998), 157 F.T.R. 123 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.060

Sierra Club of Canada, a national organization concerned with environmental protection and restoration and a non-profit corporation duly constituted on April 27, 1992, by Letters Patent under the Canadian Corporations Act (applicant) v. the Minister of Finance of Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, the Minister of International Trade of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Atomic Energy of Canada (intervenor)

(T-85-97)

Indexed As: Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Evans, J.

December 2, 1998.

Summary:

The Sierra Club applied for judicial review of the respondent Ministers' decision not to subject the sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to China to an environmental assessment. Atomic Energy of Canada applied to strike out the Sierra Club's application on the ground of lack of standing. The Associate Senior Prothonotary dismissed the motion to strike. Atomic Energy and the Ministers moved to appeal the decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the motion.

Practice - Topic 220

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Respecting validity of administrative action by government officials or public body - The Sierra Club applied for judi­cial review of the respondent Ministers' deci­sion not to subject the sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to China to an environ­mental assessment - The Sierra Club sub­mitted that partial funding of the pro­ject from public money attracted a duty to conduct an environmental assessment - Atomic Energy of Canada applied to strike out the Sierra Club's application for lack of standing - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that public interest applicants were not excluded from apply­ing for judicial review - The court found that there was a serious justiciable issue, the Sierra Club had a genuine interest in the subject matter and there were not more appropriate litigants likely to litigate the issue - See paragraphs 22 to 91.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Public interest standing - [See Practice - Topic 220 ].

Words and Phrases

Directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the meaning of the phrase "di­rectly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought" as it appears in s. 18.1(1) of the Federal Court Act - See paragraphs 27 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. (1993), 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hall­mark Cards Inc. (1997), 126 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 22].

Iron v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) (1993), 107 Sask.R. 297; 10 C.E.L.R. 164 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners; Ex parte Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., [1982] A.C. 617, refd to. [para. 26].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30 et al. v. WMI Waste Manage­ment of Canada Inc. (1996), 178 A.R. 297; 110 W.A.C. 297; 34 Admin. L.R.(2d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Banff National Park (Superintendent) et al.; Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al. (1996), 202 N.R. 132; 20 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 171 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada (Minis­ter of Canadian Heritage) - see Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Banff National Park (Superintendent) et al.; Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada (Min­ister of Canadian Heritage) et al.

Glaxo Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), [1988] 1 F.C. 422; 16 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), affd. (1990), 107 N.R. 195 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Min­ister of Public Works) et al., [1993] 2 F.C. 229; 61 F.T.R. 4 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice) and Canada (Minister of Finance), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 24 C.P.C. 62; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588, refd to. [para. 35].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Corporation of the Civil Liberties Associ­ation v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 38].

Hy and Zel's Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Attor­ney General) - see Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General).

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 634, refd to. [para. 38].

Energy Probe et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989), 33 O.A.C. 39; 68 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 13 C.R.R. 287; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, refd to. [para. 43].

Shiell v. Atomic Energy Control Board (Can.) et al. (1995), 98 F.T.R. 75 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 62].

Shiell v. Amok Ltd. and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corp. et al. (1987), 58 Sask.R. 141; 27 Admin. L.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64].

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p. World Development Movement Ltd., [1995] 1 All E.R. 611 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 67].

Inshore Fisherman's Bonafide Defence Fund v. Canada (Attorney General) (1994), 132 N.S.R.(2d) 370; 376 A.P.R. 370; 117 D.L.R.(4th) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, sect. 5(1)(b) [para. 13].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(1) [para. 27].

Counsel:

Timothy Howard, for the applicant;

Brian Saunders and Sanderson Graham, for the respondents;

Brett Leger and Peter Chapin, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents;

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on September 10, 1998, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Evans, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judg­ment on December 2, 1998.