MacPherson v. Canada ( Minister of Communications )
T-1172-93
Jerome A.C.J.
14/12/95
3 pp.
Applicant sought order under Federal Court Act, s. 18 prohibiting respondent from licencing Bell Mobility Cellular for operation of cellular transmitter adjacent to applicant's property-Before matter heard, Minister approved licence for BMC at alternate location, rendering matter moot- Under R. 1618, no costs payable in respect of judicial review unless Court, for special reasons, so orders-Silk v. Umpire (Unemployment Insurance Act), [1982] 1 F.C. 795 (C.A.) and Art Gallery of Ontario v. Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board et al. (1995), 88 F.T.R. 41 (F.C.T.D.) referred to for interpretation of R. 1618-Party and party costs awarded to applicant for two reasons-First, representative character (initiated by personal applicant, but also expressing community concern over possible environmental consequences from granting of application)-Second, hearing could have been avoided had respondent made it known alternative licence had been applied for and granted-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1618 (as am. by SOR/92-43, s. 19).