Noahs Ark Foundation v. Canada

Noahs Ark Foundation v. Canada

The Rule 399 application was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate a qualifying new matter, fraud, or procedural defect; Prothonotary Aalto acted within his broad discretionary jurisdiction in ordering retention of counsel under Rule 120 as no special circumstances were shown and allegations of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 FC 1183
Parties
Applicant Corporation: Noahs Ark Foundation; Applicant Trust: ITIG Trust; Applicant Individual/representative: Nathan Joel Peachey Secretary; Respondent Government: Her Majesty the Queen (Crown); Respondent Government Department: Ministry of the Attorney General; Respondent Law Enforcement: Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Respondent Individual: Jesus Berrios; Respondent Individual: Jose Berrios; Respondent Individual: Richard Berrios
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary Order Under Rule 399
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Prothonotary Milczynski's case-management order varied to require applicants to retain counsel by November 19, 2015; costs awarded to Crown respondents
Legal Topics
Representation of Corporations (rule 120), Setting Aside Orders (rule 399), Proceeds of Crime Seizure, Ministerial Review, Case Management Orders, Costs
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Customs and Border Control Criminal Law Representation of Corporations (rule 120) Setting Aside Orders (rule 399) Proceeds of Crime Seizure Ministerial Review +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noahs Ark Foundation

Applicant Corporation

ITIG Trust

Applicant Trust

Nathan Joel Peachey Secretary

Applicant Individual/representative

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown)

Respondent Government

Ministry of the Attorney General

Respondent Government Department

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Respondent Law Enforcement

Jesus Berrios

Respondent Individual

Jose Berrios

Respondent Individual

Richard Berrios

Respondent Individual

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion to Set Aside Prothonotary Order Under Rule 399

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Prothonotary Aalto's April 30, 2014 order should be set aside under Rule 399
  2. 2 Whether Rule 112(1) displaced Rule 120 for representation of ITIG/Noahs Ark
  3. 3 Whether the Prothonotary lacked jurisdiction or acted by fraud in ordering retention of counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The Rule 399 application was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate a qualifying new matter, fraud, or procedural defect; Prothonotary Aalto acted within his broad discretionary jurisdiction in ordering retention of counsel under Rule 120 as no special circumstances were shown and allegations of fraud/conspiracy were unsubstantiated.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Prothonotary Milczynski's case-management order varied to require applicants to retain counsel by November 19, 2015; costs awarded to Crown respondents

Orders

  • Applicants' motion under Rule 399 to set aside Prothonotary Aalto's April 30, 2014 order is dismissed
  • Prothonotary Milczynski's case-management order dated April 27, 2015 is varied to require the Applicants to retain counsel by November 19, 2015, failing which the judicial review application will go back into Status Review