Date: 19990316
Docket: T-938-95
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
JOHANN DUECK
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] On January 18, 1999, The Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Including Those of the Holocaust ("the Coalition") and Mr. Kenneth M. Narvey, brought a motion, inter alia seeking reconsideration of the Order and clarification of the Reasons of the Court of December 21, 1998. On January 22, 1999, I issued a Direction that the standing of Mr. Narvey and the Coalition as well as the capacity of Mr. Narvey to represent the Coalition be addressed as preliminary issues.
[2] While the issues on this motion are not res judicata,1 I am of the view that neither Mr. Narvey nor the Coalition should be granted standing.
[3] First, with respect to the request that this Court reconsider the Order of December 21, 1998, Rule 397 allows a "party" to apply to reconsider the terms of an order. The petitioners have not demonstrated that they meet the test for the joinder of additional parties under Rule 104. This is because the issues raised by the petitioners could be effectually and completely settled without their addition to the proceeding.2 Further, even if the conditions set out in Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 503 are applicable, they have not been met in this case. Finally, even if Rule 397 allows an intervener who has not participated in the proceedings to bring such a motion, I have not been satisfied that the moving parties should be granted intervener status.4 The moving parties have not demonstrated that in relation to the Order as worded, their rights have been seriously affected.
[4] With respect to the issue of a clarification of the Reasons of December 21, 1998, I am also of the view that the moving parties should not be granted standing to make such a request. Any suggested inconsistency between the Reasons of this Court and those in the case of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nemsila5 will be addressed, should the need arise, in future cases involving these issues.
[5] For these reasons, I would dismiss the motions of the petitioners.
Marc Noël
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
March 16, 1999
__________________1 It is therefore not being necessary to make any declaration with respect to my Order of October 10, 1997 or to set aside or vary this Order.
2 See Parker v. Stevens (1998), 228 N.R. 133 at 140 (Fed. C.A.).
4 See Canadian Wildlife Federation Inc. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) (1989), 26 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.).