Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr

Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-06-03 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 186 File numbers A-208-09 Decision Content Date: 20090603 Docket: A-208-09 Citation: 2009 FCA 186 Present: RICHARD C.J. BETWEEN: THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE Appellants and OMAR AHMED KHADR Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 3, 2009. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD C.J. Date: 20090603 Docket: A-208-09 Citation: 2009 FCA 186 Present: RICHARD C.J. BETWEEN: THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE Appellants and OMAR AHMED KHADR Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER RICHARD C.J. [1] This is a motion by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules for the following order: 1. leave to intervene in the hearing of this appeal pursuant to Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106; 2. leave to file a factum up to 20 pages in length; 3. leave to make oral argument at the hearing, up to 15 minutes in length; and 4. such further or other Order as this Honourable Court may deem appropriate. [2] The appeal arises from the Judgment of the Federal Court dated April 23, 2009 (Omar Ahmed Khadr v. The Prime Minister of Canada, et al., 2009 FC 405). [3] The appeal is proceeding on an expedited basis and the parties have agreed to stay enforcement of the Judgment pending resolution of this appeal. [4] The BCCLA claims that it has a strong interest in this appeal, because of its long history of involvement with national security, intelligence and anti-terrorism issues in Canada. [5] The respondent consents to the motion of the BCCLA to intervene in this appeal and has not filed further response. [6] The appellants submit that BCCLA’s motion for leave to intervene should be dismissed. [7] In arriving at my decision to dismiss the motion to intervene brought by the proposed interveners, I have considered the factors relevant to an application for intervention in Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada Airlines International Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (QL), paragraph 8 (C.A.) and in particular whether: - the position of the proposed intervener is adequately defended by one of the parties to the case; - the interests of justice are better served by the intervention of the proposed third party; - the Court can hear and decide the cause on its merits without the proposed intervener. [8] At its highest, BCCLA’s interest is jurisprudential in nature. It is well-established that this kind of interest alone cannot justify an application to intervene. [9] Accordingly, the motion to intervene will be dismissed. "J. Richard" Chief Justice FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-208-09 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD C.J. DATED: June 3, 2009 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Doreen Mueller FOR THE APPELLANTS Nathan J. Whitling FOR THE RESPONDENT Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENER (BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION) SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Arvay Finlay Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENER (BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION) John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE APPELLANTS Parlee McLaws LLP Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT