Talukder v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
The motions to intervene were dismissed because the proposed interveners failed the Rule 109 usefulness test: their submissions would largely duplicate the appellant's detailed memorandum, risk raising new issues beyond the notice of appeal (including broad international law matters and evidence not in the record), could cause delay, and are unnecessary to resolve the narrow certified question on the heightened 'specific intent' requirement for organizations alleged to have engaged in terrorism; only international law that directly assists in deciding that specific question is permissible.
Source excerpt
- Interveners and rule 109
- Interpretation of s.34(1) irpa
- Specific intent requirement for organizations alleged to engage in terrorism
- Inadmissibility on terrorism grounds
- Usefulness test for intervention
- Scope of appellate issues