Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr

Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2009-06-03
Neutral citation
2009 FCA 186
File numbers
A-208-09
Decision Content
Date: 20090603
Docket: A-208-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 186
Present: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Appellants
and
OMAR AHMED KHADR
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 3, 2009.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD C.J.
Date: 20090603
Docket: A-208-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 186
Present: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE
DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Appellants
and
OMAR AHMED KHADR
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD C.J.
[1] This is a motion by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules for the following order:
1. leave to intervene in the hearing of this appeal pursuant to Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106;
2. leave to file a factum up to 20 pages in length;
3. leave to make oral argument at the hearing, up to 15 minutes in length; and
4. such further or other Order as this Honourable Court may deem appropriate.
[2] The appeal arises from the Judgment of the Federal Court dated April 23, 2009 (Omar Ahmed Khadr v. The Prime Minister of Canada, et al., 2009 FC 405).
[3] The appeal is proceeding on an expedited basis and the parties have agreed to stay enforcement of the Judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
[4] The BCCLA claims that it has a strong interest in this appeal, because of its long history of involvement with national security, intelligence and anti-terrorism issues in Canada.
[5] The respondent consents to the motion of the BCCLA to intervene in this appeal and has not filed further response.
[6] The appellants submit that BCCLA’s motion for leave to intervene should be dismissed.
[7] In arriving at my decision to dismiss the motion to intervene brought by the proposed interveners, I have considered the factors relevant to an application for intervention in Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada Airlines International Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (QL), paragraph 8 (C.A.) and in particular whether:
- the position of the proposed intervener is adequately defended by one of the parties to the case;
- the interests of justice are better served by the intervention of the proposed third party;
- the Court can hear and decide the cause on its merits without the proposed intervener.
[8] At its highest, BCCLA’s interest is jurisprudential in nature. It is well-established that this kind of interest alone cannot justify an application to intervene.
[9] Accordingly, the motion to intervene will be dismissed.
"J. Richard"
Chief Justice
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-208-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD C.J.
DATED: June 3, 2009
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Doreen Mueller
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Nathan J. Whitling
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C.
FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENER (BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Arvay Finlay
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENER (BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION)
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Parlee McLaws LLP
Edmonton, Alberta
FOR THE RESPONDENT