Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Syndicat des journalistes de Radio-Canada ( CSN ) v. Canada ( Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions )

T-502-96

Morneau P.

27/9/96

9 pp.

Motion to amend style of cause of originating notice of motion to have Canadian Broadcasting Corporation designated respondent, and Attorney General of Canada and Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada designated mis en cause-Mis en cause should not be designated in context of application for judicial review, because such an approach does not correspond to scheme of Federal Court Rules, RR. 1600 et seq. or lessons emerging from Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 2 F.C. 447-RR. 1604, 1611 comprehensively dispose of role drafters of rules intended Attorney General of Canada and federal board, commission or other tribunal to perform within framework of any application for judicial review in which Attorney General not validly either applicant or respondent-In motion, Attorney General of Canada seeking half-way institution between situation of person interested within meaning of Rules but having no intention of pursuing matter and similar person, through motion, requesting intervenor status-All persons interested in argument can appear in proceedings only as intervenors if unable to be applicants or respondents-Any other status for federal board, commission or other tribunal or for Attorney General would necessitate amendment to Rules-Although inclusion of Attorney General as mis en cause common practice in Quebec in Superior Court judicial review proceedings, Rules, Part V.1, sets out different system from one existing in Quebec under Code of Civil Procedure-R. 5 therefore inapplicable-Motion allowed in part-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation henceforth designated respondent-Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada, Attorney General of Canada may act as "intervenors" in case if they so request through motion under R. 1611-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 1604 (as am. by SOR/92-43, s. 19), 1611 (as am. idem).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.