Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Canadian Council For Refugees v. Canada

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Leave to intervene was denied because the proposed intervener (LEAF) failed to satisfy the established criteria: it was not directly affected, its constituency was already represented by existing applicants, it would add no unique evidence or position and would merely duplicate arguments, so intervention is unnecessary and the interests of justice do not require it.

Court disposition

Motion to intervene dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Canadian Council for Refugees

Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh Salsberg

Canadian Counsel of Churches

Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh Salsberg

Amnesty International

Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh Salsberg

John Doe

Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh Salsberg

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent Counsel: David Lucas; François Joyal; Greg George; Matina Karvellas

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review (immigration/refugee) / Motion to Intervene Under Federal Court Rules (rule 109/rule 369) — Motion Dismissed

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
LEAF submitted it is a public interest advocacy group representing women and girls who are particularly vulnerable in refugee matters and therefore should be permitted to intervene on limited terms (accept record, file factum, make oral submissions, no costs sought).
Respondent
The proposed intervener does not meet the criteria for intervention: it is not directly affected, its constituency is already represented by existing public advocacy applicants, it offers no unique position or evidence and would only duplicate arguments, so intervention is unnecessary and should be denied.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 109

    The court has discretion under Rule 109 to grant or refuse leave to intervene; the proposed intervener bears the onus of persuasion.

  2. 02

    Federal Court practice and the reasons of Hughes J., 2007 FC 8

    Criteria for intervention include direct effect, justiciable issue/public interest, lack of other means to present the issue, adequacy of representation by parties, whether interests of justice are served, and whether the court can decide the matter without the intervener.

  3. 03

    Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 369

    Motions under Rule 369 may be decided on written representations where appropriate.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Leave to intervene was denied because the proposed intervener (LEAF) failed to satisfy the established criteria: it was not directly affected, its constituency was already represented by existing applicants, it would add no unique evidence or position and would merely duplicate arguments, so intervention is unnecessary and the interests of justice do not require it.

Obiter and limits

  • An intervener who will not file evidence and whose submissions would be duplicative is unlikely to be granted leave.
  • Consent of existing applicants to an intervention does not alone justify intervention if criteria are unmet.

Court disposition

Motion to intervene dismissed; no order as to costs.

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 4 January 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 4 January 2007

2007 FC 8

Canadian Council For Refugees v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2007-01-04 Neutral citation 2007 FC 8 File numbers IMM-7818-05 Decision Content Date: 20070104 Docket: IMM-7818-05 Citation: 2007 FC 8 Toronto, Ontario, January 4, 2007 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES, CANADIAN COUNSEL OF CHURCHES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOE Applicants and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

AMENDED REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] These reasons concern a motion by Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) to intervene in these proceedings. Rule 109 is directed to such a motion and gives to the Court a discretion as to whether leave to intervene should be granted. The proposed intervener bears the onus to persuade the Court that such leave should be granted. The parties are in agreement that the following are the appropriate criteria: 1. Is the proposed intervener directly affected by the outcome?

2. Does there exist a justiciable issue and a veritable public interest?

3. Is there an apparent lack of any other reasonable or efficient means to submit the question of the Court?

4. Is the position of the proposed intervener adequately defended by one of the parties to the case?

5. Are the interests of justice better served by the intervention of the proposed third party?

6. Can the Court hear and decide the cause on its merits without the proposed intervener? [2] The position of the proposed intervener is essentially that it is a public interest advocacy group with interests particularly directed to women and girls, a group which it alleges is particularly vulnerable in respect of refugee issues such as those raised in the present proceedings. [3] LEAF has failed to establish that it meets any of the above criteria accepted in determining whether discretion should be exercised in allowing it to intervene. LEAF is not personally affected by these proceedings, it represents a constituency that is part of the larger community already represented by the two public advocacy groups before this Court; it has not demonstrated that it is any unique position such that its presence as an intervener is necessary for a full and proper determination of the issues before the Court. LEAF does not propose to file any evidence of its own, its role therefore would simply be to add to the argument that can be and one expects will be ably presented by Counsel for the Applicants. [4] The motion is therefore denied with no Order as to Costs.

ORDER UPON MOTION in writing on behalf of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) dated November 21, 2006, for an Order: 1. Pursuant to Rule 109 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 that LEAF be added as an intervener in this judicial review, on the following terms: a) LEAF will accept the record as it is and will not file any additional evidence; b) LEAF will file and serve its factum at least 2 weeks before the date of the hearing; c) LEAF will have the right to make oral submissions before this Honourable Court; and d) LEAF will not seek costs, nor shall costs be awarded against it.

2. Pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, that this Order be decided on the written representations. AND UPON reviewing the records filed by the proposed intervener and the Respondent, and noting the Consent of the Applicants; AND FOR the Reasons provided herein; THIS COURT ORDERS that 1. The motion is dismissed; 2. No Order as to costs. “Roger T. Hughes” Judge

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7818-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES, CANADIAN COUNSEL OF CHURCHES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL and JOHN DOE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369

AMENDED REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: HUGHES J. DATED: January 4, 2007 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Barbara Jackman Andrew Brouwer Leigh Salsberg FOR THE APPLICANTS David Lucas François Joyal Greg George Matina Karvellas FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD JACKMAN & ASSOCIATES Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 109

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Court Rules, 1998, Rule 369

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.