Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board)
The court concluded the Motions Judge did not err in principle or misapprehend the facts in ordering Nav Canada added as a party; appellate intervention was therefore unwarranted and the order stands.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 53
- Parties
- Appellant: The Information Commissioner of Canada; Respondent: The Executive Director of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board; Added Respondent: NAV Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 February 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From Motion to Add Party / Interlocutory Motion
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; order adding Nav Canada to the proceeding upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Discretionary Decisions, Interlocutory Motions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Information Commissioner of Canada
Appellant
The Executive Director of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Respondent
NAV Canada
Added Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Motion to Add Party / Interlocutory Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Motions Judge erred in principle in ordering Nav Canada added as a party
- 2 Whether the Motions Judge misapprehended the facts such that appellate intervention was warranted
Ratio Decidendi
The court concluded the Motions Judge did not err in principle or misapprehend the facts in ordering Nav Canada added as a party; appellate intervention was therefore unwarranted and the order stands.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; order adding Nav Canada to the proceeding upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Order adding Nav Canada as a party to the proceedings upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-02-06 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 53 File numbers A-382-01 Decision Content Date: 20020206 Docket: A-382-01 Neutral citation: 2002FCA53 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA Appellant - and - THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD Respondent - and - NAV CANADA Added Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, February 6, 2002 Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, February 6, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20020206 Docket: A-382-01 Neutral citation: 2002FCA53 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA Appellant - and - THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD Respondent - and - NAV CANADA Added Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on February 6, 2002) SHARLOW J.A. [1] An order adding a party to a proceeding is discretionary. We are not persuaded that the Motions Judge, in ordering Nav Canada to be added as a party to these proceedings, erred in principle or misapprehended the facts. Therefore, there is no basis for interfering with his order. "K. Sharlow" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-382-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OF CANADA v. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND SAFETY BOARD ET AL. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2002 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Rothstein, Sexton, Sharlow) RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Shadow, J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr. Daniel Brunet Mr. Marc-Aurele Racicot for the Appellant Ms. Mary L. Caldbick for the Respondent, Executive Director Mr. Neil R. Wilson Ms. Ritu Gambhir for the Respondent, NAV Canada SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Information Commissioner of Canada Ottawa, Ontario for the Appellant McCarthy Tetrault LLP Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent, Executive Director Cowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent, NAV Canada