Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General)

Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General)

Leave to amend was denied because the proposed expansion sought documents not part of the record before the GIC at the time of the impugned Emergency Proclamation; Rule 317 does not permit production of materials from a distinct later GIC decision (the Revocation Proclamation) absent narrow exceptions which are not pleaded, so the amendment had no reasonable prospect of success and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Citation
2022 FC 1232
Parties
Applicant/moving Party: Canadian Constitution Foundation; Respondent/responding Party: The Attorney General of Canada; Intervenor/on Application Only: Attorney General of Alberta
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Motion for Leave to Amend Notice of Application and Rule 317 Production Request
Outcome
Motion for leave to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendments (rule 75), Record for Judicial Review (rule 317), Cabinet Confidentiality, Procedural Fairness, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Limits on Discovery, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Judicial Review Emergency Powers Amendments (rule 75) Record for Judicial Review (rule 317) Cabinet Confidentiality +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Constitution Foundation

Applicant/moving Party

The Attorney General of Canada

Respondent/responding Party

Attorney General of Alberta

Intervenor/on Application Only

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Motion for Leave to Amend Notice of Application and Rule 317 Production Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Notice of Application to expand a Rule 317 production request to include the record of the Revocation Proclamation
  2. 2 Whether documents relating to the Revocation Proclamation form part of the record before the GIC for the Emergency Proclamation
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment has a reasonable prospect of success or is a fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was denied because the proposed expansion sought documents not part of the record before the GIC at the time of the impugned Emergency Proclamation; Rule 317 does not permit production of materials from a distinct later GIC decision (the Revocation Proclamation) absent narrow exceptions which are not pleaded, so the amendment had no reasonable prospect of success and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Court Disposition

Motion for leave to amend dismissed

Orders

  • The Motion for leave to amend the Applicant’s Notice of Application is dismissed
  • No costs are awarded