Dutchak v. Canada (Attorney General)

Dutchak v. Canada (Attorney General)

Motion granted to strike the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Labour as respondents because Rule 303(2) did not apply and they were not directly affected persons under Rule 303(1); the Canada Industrial Relations Board cannot be named as a respondent to a judicial review of its own decision.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 FCA 438
Parties
Applicant: Dale Dutchak; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Minister of Labour Joseph Fontana; Respondent: Teamsters Canada Rail Conference; Respondent: United Transportation Union; Respondent: Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Respondents; Reasons for Order (decision)
Outcome
Motion granted to strike the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Labour as respondents
Legal Topics
Naming of Parties, Federal Courts Rules (rule 303), Service of Documents, Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Naming of Parties Federal Courts Rules (rule 303) Service of Documents Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dale Dutchak

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Minister of Labour Joseph Fontana

Respondent

Teamsters Canada Rail Conference

Respondent

United Transportation Union

Respondent

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motion to Strike Respondents; Reasons for Order (decision)

  1. 1 Whether the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Labour were properly named as respondents under Rule 303
  2. 2 Whether the Canada Industrial Relations Board could be named as a respondent to a judicial review of its decision
  3. 3 Whether Rule 303(2) (naming AG where no other respondents) applied

Ratio Decidendi

Motion granted to strike the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Labour as respondents because Rule 303(2) did not apply and they were not directly affected persons under Rule 303(1); the Canada Industrial Relations Board cannot be named as a respondent to a judicial review of its own decision.

Court Disposition

Motion granted to strike the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Labour as respondents

Orders

  • The motion by the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Labour to strike them as respondents is granted.
  • The Canada Industrial Relations Board is not a proper respondent to the judicial review and was previously struck as a respondent.