Chiasson v. Canada (Attorney General)

Chiasson v. Canada (Attorney General)

The motion to strike was dismissed because the application was not shown to be so plainly untenable as to warrant striking on a preliminary motion; however the Court ordered procedural remediation: the applicants must split the proceedings into two separate judicial review applications (one concerning the 1,000 MT...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FC 1208
Parties
Applicants (respondents in the Motion): Jean-Gilles Chiasson et al.; Respondent (moving Party in the Motion): Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Preliminary Motion to Strike / Order to Divide Application
Outcome
Motion to strike dismissed in part; application must be divided into two separate judicial review applications; extension granted to respondent to file sworn statement; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus, Time Limits and Extensions, Federal Courts Rules S.302 and S.307
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Fisheries Law Federal Court Procedure Judicial Review Mandamus Time Limits and Extensions Federal Courts Rules S.302 and S.307

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean-Gilles Chiasson et al.

Applicants (respondents in the Motion)

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent (moving Party in the Motion)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Preliminary Motion to Strike / Order to Divide Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple decisions can be challenged in a single application under Federal Courts Rules s.302
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' challenge is time barred under Federal Courts Act s.18.1(2) (30-day limitation)
  3. 3 Whether the notice of application should be struck on a preliminary motion

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to strike was dismissed because the application was not shown to be so plainly untenable as to warrant striking on a preliminary motion; however the Court ordered procedural remediation: the applicants must split the proceedings into two separate judicial review applications (one concerning the 1,000 MT sale/proceeds and one concerning the $37.4M distribution subject to waiver), allowed an extension for the respondent to file the required sworn statement under Rule 307, and refused costs.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike dismissed in part; application must be divided into two separate judicial review applications; extension granted to respondent to file sworn statement; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for judicial review must be divided in two: (a) one on the distribution of the amount of $1,798,825 received for the sale of 1,000 MT of the snow crab TAC; (b) one on the decision to require a waiver before distributing the $37.4 million in Marshall Response Initiative funds.
  • The applicants have 10 days to issue and file these two new applications for judicial review.