Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of fisheries and oceans)

Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of fisheries and oceans)

The motion was dismissed because the interveners failed to demonstrate any need for the discovery sought, provided no supporting affidavit and did not particularize the questions or areas to be explored, contrary to the reservation in the April 12, 2002 order that interveners must show necessity for discovery rights.

Citation
2003 FC 1018
Parties
Plaintiffs: Shubenacadie Indian Band and its members; Defendants: Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada); Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada); Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Interveners: LFA District 34 Lobster Committee and Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil (aboriginal Law) / Pre Trial Motion Concerning Discovery Rights
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Intervention, Discovery Rights, Rule 369, Leave to Intervene, Case Management Orders
Source Language
English
Aboriginal Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Evidence and Discovery Intervention Discovery Rights Rule 369 Leave to Intervene +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shubenacadie Indian Band and its members

Plaintiffs

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada); Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada); Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Defendants

LFA District 34 Lobster Committee and Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Civil (aboriginal Law) / Pre Trial Motion Concerning Discovery Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interveners are entitled as of right to examine the plaintiffs' representative at discovery
  2. 2 Whether the interveners demonstrated the necessity for discovery and complied with the case management order reserving discovery rights
  3. 3 Whether the motion was properly supported by affidavit and sufficiently particularized as to issues to be explored

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the interveners failed to demonstrate any need for the discovery sought, provided no supporting affidavit and did not particularize the questions or areas to be explored, contrary to the reservation in the April 12, 2002 order that interveners must show necessity for discovery rights.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.