Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2006

Salt Spring Aquafarms Ltd. v. Salt Spring Harbour Authority

2006 FCA 20
AdministrativeJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Salt Spring Aquafarms Ltd. v. Salt Spring Harbour Authority Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-01-17 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 20 File numbers A-291-05 Decision Content Date: 20060117 Docket: A-291-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 20 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: SALT SPRING AQUAFARMS LTD. Appellant and SALT SPRING HARBOUR AUTHORITY Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20060117 Docket: A-291-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 20 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: SALT SPRING AQUAFARMS LTD. Appellant and SALT SPRING HARBOUR AUTHORITY Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006) SHARLOW J.A. [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a judge of the Federal Court denying the application of the appellant for leave to commence an application for judicial review of the decision of the respondent in the fall of 2003 to adopt a policy that, according to the appellant, effectively precludes the appellant from obtaining permission to sell its aquaculture products in Ganges Harbour. This is a discretionary decision of the judge that requires consideration of the factors in Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263, 63 N.R. 106 and Canada (Attorney General) v. …

Read full judgment
Salt Spring Aquafarms Ltd. v. Salt Spring Harbour Authority
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-01-17
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 20
File numbers
A-291-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060117
Docket: A-291-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 20
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
SALT SPRING AQUAFARMS LTD.
Appellant
and
SALT SPRING HARBOUR AUTHORITY
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20060117
Docket: A-291-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 20
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
SALT SPRING AQUAFARMS LTD.
Appellant
and
SALT SPRING HARBOUR AUTHORITY
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 2006)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of a judge of the Federal Court denying the application of the appellant for leave to commence an application for judicial review of the decision of the respondent in the fall of 2003 to adopt a policy that, according to the appellant, effectively precludes the appellant from obtaining permission to sell its aquaculture products in Ganges Harbour. This is a discretionary decision of the judge that requires consideration of the factors in Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263, 63 N.R. 106 and Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly, (1999) 244 N.R. 399.
[2] Having reviewed the record and written argument and heard the appellant, we are not persuaded that there is any basis upon which this Court should intervene to reverse the judge's decision. We would add only that we express no opinion on whether the respondent is a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within the meaning of section 2 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
[3] This appeal will be dismissed with costs.
(Sgd.) "Karen R. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-291-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Salt Spring Aquafarms Ltd. v. Salt Spring Harbour Authority
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 17, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A
DATED: January 17, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Fran Crowhurst
FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. F. Matthew Kirchner
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Crowhurst Law
Victoria, BC
FOR THE APPELLANT
Ratcliff and Company LLP
North Vancouver, BC
FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases