Canadian Council For Refugees v. Canada
- Citation
- 2007 FC 8
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 4 January 2007
- Posture
- Judicial Review (immigration/refugee) / Motion to Intervene Under Federal Court Rules (rule 109/rule 369) — Motion Dismissed
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 4 January 2007
- Posture
- Judicial Review (immigration/refugee) / Motion to Intervene Under Federal Court Rules (rule 109/rule 369) — Motion Dismissed
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 SalsbergCanadian Counsel of Churches
Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh SalsbergAmnesty International
Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh SalsbergJohn Doe
Applicant Counsel: Barbara Jackman; Andrew Brouwer; Leigh SalsbergHer Majesty the Queen
Respondent Counsel: David Lucas; François Joyal; Greg George; Matina Karvellas03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review (immigration/refugee) / Motion to Intervene Under Federal Court Rules (rule 109/rule 369) — Motion Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether LEAF should be granted intervener status under Rule 109
- 02
Whether the proposed intervener is directly affected by the outcome
- 03
Whether the proposed intervener would add a unique position or evidence
- 04
Whether the interests of justice require intervention
- 05
Whether the intervener’s role is adequately represented by existing parties
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Federal Court
Judgment· 4 January 2007
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
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.