Date: 20030924
Docket: T-25-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1095
Ottawa, Ontario, Wednesday, this 24th day of September, 2003
BETWEEN:
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
TABIB P.
[1] The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association seek leave to intervene in the application for judicial review brought by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission (hereinafter "the CPC") against a decision of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police refusing to comply with a request of the CPC to furnish materials under the control of the RCMP relevant to a complaint referred to the CPC for review under section 45.41(1) of the RCMP Act. It appears that the RCMP refused to furnish certain materials relevant to the complaint on the ground that the materials contained information protected by the police informer privilege rule and, according to the RCMP, by a Court order.
[2] The Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, opposes the motion for leave to intervene while the Applicant supports it.
[3] The criteria to be considered by the Court in determining this motion were succinctly set out in CUPE v. Canadian Airlines International Limited [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (F.C.A.) as follows:
" 1) Is the proposed Intervener directly affected by the outcome?
2) Does there exist a justiciable issue and a veritable public interest?
3) Is there an apparent lack of any other reasonable or efficient means to submit the question to the Court?
4) Is the position of the proposed Intervener adequately defended by one of the parties to the case?
5) Are the interests of justice better served by the intervention of the proposed third party?
6) Can the Court hear and decide the case on its merits without the proposed Intervener?"
[4] Contrary to the proposed Interveners' submission, I do not believe that the case of R. v. Finta [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1138, interpreting and applying former Rule 18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, establishes a broader test for public interest intervention which somehow displaces or broadens the criteria established in CUPE v. Canadian Airlines.
[5] Considering, therefore, the factors identified in CUPE v. Canadian Airlines in light of the evidence submitted by the proposed Interveners and the circumstances of this case, I find that the proposed Interveners fail to meet five out of the six criteria for consideration.
[6] 1) Is the proposed Intervener directly affected by the outcome?
[7] The proposed Interveners did not instigate and are not parties to the complaint from which the CPC's request for information arose, giving rise to the present application. The proposed Interveners have not alleged nor proven that they are parties to any complaint in which the issue under consideration in this application arises. Organizations genuinely interested in, and possessing special knowledge and expertise as to the issues before the Court have been recognized by the Court as having the required interest to intervene in public interest litigation (specifically, see Rothmans, Benson and Hedges Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1989] F.C.J. No. 707 (F.C.A.)). However, the recognition of sufficient interest, on these grounds, where a proposed Intervener is not directly affected by the outcome, should in my view be reserved to cases where substantial charter issues are at stake. The present application is not one of those.
[8] 2) Does there exist a justiciable issue and a veritable public interest?
[9] This criteria has been met.
[10] 3) Is there an apparent lack of any other reasonable or efficient means to submit the question to the Court?
[11] While the proposed Interveners might wish to give more emphasis to certain parts of the argument already submitted by the Applicant in its memorandum of fact and law, I find that every question which the proposed Interveners intend to raise if they were granted Intervener status are in fact raised by the Applicant and therefore before the Court for determination.
[12] 4) Is the position of the proposed Intervener adequately defended by one of the parties to the case?
[13] While the proposed Interveners submit that their interests are broader than the Applicant's and that they are "better situated" than the Applicant to argue certain aspects of the matter, they have not established that the position of the proposed Interveners in the outcome of the application is not adequately defended by the Applicant.
[14] Although the proposed Interveners argue that certain submissions they intend to make are not addressed or put forward by the Applicant, and in one case that the Applicant "cannot" make those submissions, I find the submissions so identified by the proposed Interveners to be contrived and insignificant.
[15] 5) Are the interest of justice better served by the intervention of the proposed third party?
[16] The proposed Interveners suggest that the interest of justice would be met by their intervention as it would enhance public confidence in the RCMP public complaints process and in the role of the CPC, as was the clear legislative intent of Parliament. As it is the CPC's own mandate to conduct objective, open and fair handlings of complaints in a manner which will command public confidence, and as the CPC is bringing the present judicial review application in compliance with that very mandate, I cannot see how it would be in the interest of justice to allow the proposed Interveners to present arguments essentially supporting the Applicant's position. The arguments the Interveners intend to submit are neither different from the CPC's, nor do they lend a particularly useful new perspective to the arguments.
[17] 6) Can the Court hear and decide the case on its merits without the proposed Intervener?
[18] In light of the reasons set out above, it seems clear that the presence of the proposed Interveners is not necessary for the Court to hear and decide the case on its merits.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is dismissed.
"Mireille Tabib"
Prothonotary
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-25-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: MADAM PROTHONOTARY MIREILLE TABIB
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
|
FOR THE APPELLANT/ APPLICANT |
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |