Leishman v. Canada
- Citation
- 2020 FC 169
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 30 January 2020
- Posture
- Application for Judicial Review / Costs Determination (supplementary Judgment)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 30 January 2020
- Posture
- Application for Judicial Review / Costs Determination (supplementary Judgment)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Applicants did not satisfy the Bielli criteria because they had a personal interest as neighbours that could economically justify the proceeding; although they advanced a good faith public interest argument, that did not absolve them from the usual consequences of unsuccessful litigation, therefore costs were fixed at $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable to the respondents.
Court disposition
Costs fixed in the amount of $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable by the applicants to the respondents.
Orders
- Costs are fixed in the amount of $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable by the Applicants to the Respondents.
02
Material facts
Parties
Fraser Leishman
Applicant Counsel: Kimberley WakefieldGray Greenway
Applicant Counsel: Kimberley WakefieldHer Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Parks Canada Agency
Respondent Counsel: Cameron G. Regehr, Keelan SinnottAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded: CAD 2,750
03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Costs Determination (supplementary Judgment)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether applicants qualified for public interest exemption from costs
- 02
Whether applicants should be awarded costs despite unsuccessful litigation
- 03
Appropriate quantum of costs payable to respondents
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicants argued the proceeding was brought in the public interest and that they should be excused from paying costs or, alternatively, awarded costs.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued they successfully defended the application and sought costs calculated at the mid-point of Column III of the Federal Courts Tariff.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Bielli v Canada, 2013 FC 953 at paras 13-18
Public interest litigants may be excused from costs where they meet the Bielli criteria, including absence of personal interest that would justify the proceeding economically.
- 02
Federal Courts practice and precedent; Federal Courts Tariff (Column III)
The unsuccessful litigant ordinarily bears the usual burden of costs, subject to exceptions for bona fide public interest litigation.
- 03
Court's evaluative statement in this judgment and prior decisions including Leishman v Canada, 2017 FC 206
The public interest represented by taxpayers and government operations can justify awarding costs to the Crown where public funds are implicated.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Applicants did not satisfy the Bielli criteria because they had a personal interest as neighbours that could economically justify the proceeding; although they advanced a good faith public interest argument, that did not absolve them from the usual consequences of unsuccessful litigation, therefore costs were fixed at $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable to the respondents.
Obiter and limits
- Court noted that applicants advanced a position shared by some in the community but that community support did not displace personal interest analysis.
- Court referenced prior related rulings including an earlier costs award to respondents in Leishman v Canada, 2017 FC 206.
Court disposition
Costs fixed in the amount of $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable by the applicants to the respondents.
- Costs are fixed in the amount of $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable by the Applicants to the Respondents.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 30 January 2020
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· 30 January 2020
Leishman v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-01-30 Neutral citation 2020 FC 169 File numbers T-396-19 Decision Content Date: 20200130 Docket: T-396-19 Citation: 2020 FC 169 Ottawa, Ontario, January 30, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN:
FRASER LEISHMAN AND
GRAY GREENWAY Applicants and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND
PARKS CANADA AGENCY Respondents
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] These are my supplementary reasons dealing with the outstanding issue of costs in this proceeding: see Leishman v Canada, 2019 FC 1589. [2] The Respondents successfully defended the application brought by the Applicants and seek costs calculated at the mid-point of Column III of the Federal Courts Tariff. The Applicants argue that their application was brought in the public interest and that they should be excused from paying costs or, alternatively, that they should be awarded costs. [3] It is not entirely clear what motivated the Applicants to bring this challenge. They had a personal interest in the sense that they are neighbours to the Parks Canada development that was in issue and they wanted it stopped. On the record before me, I am not satisfied that they meet all of the criteria in Bielli v Canada, 2013 FC 953 at paras 13-18, 439 FTR 149, and, in particular, that they had no personal interest that would justify the proceeding economically. At the same time, they were advancing a good faith argument that the development was unlawful. I accept the point that they were advancing a position shared by at least some others in the community. [4] I am not satisfied, however, that the Applicants should be saved entirely from bearing the usual burden of unsuccessful litigation. The taxpayers of Canada who fund Parks Canada’s operations also
represent a public interest that should not be entirely ignored. I note as well that costs were awarded by this Court in favour of the Respondents when the first application was dismissed: see Leishman v Canada, 2017 FC 206, 277 ACWS (3d) 455. In the result, I will fix costs payable by the Applicants to the Respondents in the amount of $2,750 inclusive of disbursements. JUDGMENT IN T-396-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that costs are fixed in the amount of $2,750 inclusive of disbursements payable by the Applicants to the Respondents. "R.L. Barnes" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-396-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: FRASER LEISHMAN AND GRAY GREENWAY v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND PARKS CANADA AGENCY PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 21, 2019 SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BARNES J. DATED: JANUARY 30, 2020 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Kimberley Wakefield For The ApplicantS Cameron G. Regehr Keelan Sinnott For The RespondentS SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Dentons Canada LLP Edmonton, AB For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, AB For The RespondentS
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.