Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al., (1995) 98 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

• Judge: Simpson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 98 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

Sunshine Village Corp. v. Can. (1995), 98 F.T.R. 25 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Sunshine Village Corporation (applicant) v. Michel Dupuy, in his capacity as The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, in her capacity as Minister of Environment and G.A. Yarranton, Robyn G. Usher and David R. Witty, in their capacity as an environmental assessment panel appointed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review Sunshine Village Corporation's 1992 Long-Range Development Plan (respondents)

(T-808-95)

Indexed As: Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Simpson, J.

June 26, 1995.

Summary:

The Minister of the Environment appointed an environmental assessment panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review the Sunshine Village Corporation's (SVC) long range development plan proposal respecting a ski resort in Banff National Park. SVC applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision. The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike out or stay SVC's application.

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

Editor's Note: See 69 F.T.R. 241, 77 F.T.R. 218, 84 F.T.R. 273 and 96 F.T.R. 14, for related proceedings.

Administrative Law - Topic 24

Abuse of process - What constitutes - Pursuant to a second request by the Minister responsible for Parks Canada, the Minister of the Environment appointed an environmental assessment panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review the Sunshine Village Corporation's (SVC) long range development plan proposal respecting a ski resort - SVC applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision - The federal Crown argued that SVC knew at the time of the Minister responsible for Parks Canada's first request that a panel was certain to be appointed and that SVC should have challenged the first request - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that SVC's failure to attack the requests in favour of waiting for the actual appointment of the panel and the final terms of reference was reasonable and was not an abuse of process - See paragraphs 55 to 58.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - The Minister of the Environment appointed an environmental assessment panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review the Sunshine Village Corporation's (SVC) long range development plan proposal respecting a ski resort - SVC applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision - The federal Crown argued that the issue of the panel's validity was res judicata because it was either expressly or implicitly decided in earlier proceedings or, alternatively, the issue should have been raised by SVC in the earlier proceedings - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the argument - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Estoppel - Topic 387

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters or claims available in prior proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Estoppel - Topic 387

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters or claims available in prior proceedings - The Minister of the Environment appointed an environmental assessment panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review the Sunshine Village Corporation's (SVC) long range development plan proposal respecting a ski resort - SVC applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision - The federal Crown argued that the issue of the panel's validity was res judicata because it should have been raised by SVC in earlier proceedings - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that res judicata did not apply, where SVC had raised the issue in the earlier proceedings, but the judge felt it was unnecessary to decide it.

Counsel:

John J.L. Hunter, Q.C., for the applicant;

Francis M. Saville, Q.C., for the respondent panel members;

Stewart A.G. Elgie, for the intervenor, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society;

Kirk N. Lambrecht, for the other respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Milner Fenerty, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent panel members;

Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the other respondents.

This motion was heard at Calgary, Alberta, on June 1 and 2, 1995, before Simpson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 26, 1995.