Date: 19991230
Docket: T-1797-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 30, 1999
| BEFORE: Rouleau J. |
Between:
GROUPE DORCHESTER/ST-DAMASE, LA COOPÉRATIVE
AVICOLE, now known as
EXCELDOR COOPÉRATIVE AVICOLE,
Plaintiff-appellant,
And:
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA,
Defendant-respondent,
And:
BERNARD DRAINVILLE, Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation journalist,
Defendant-Mis-en-cause.
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] This case concerns an appeal from a decision by Richard Morneau, prothonotary, on October 21, 1999 in which he dismissed the motion to dismiss made by the plaintiff-appellant and ruled that the defendant-respondent was entitled to participate fully in the review application regarding communication of information sought by the mis-en-cause under the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1. In the same order, the prothonotary also dismissed the motion to stay the running of the deadlines made by the plaintiff-appellant.
[2] After examining the arguments of the plaintiff-appellant and the response of the defendant-respondent and of the defendant-mis-en-cause, I am persuaded that the federal agency Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has the locus standi to appear as a defendant in this matter. Although Mr. Morneau did not elaborate on his reasons for dismissing the application, the fact remains that the appellant had the burden of showing that the prothonotary"s discretionary order was vitiated by a flagrant error and that he exercised his power based on an incorrect principle or a misunderstanding of the facts. In the case at bar I am not persuaded that the plaintiff-appellant has discharged this burden.
[3] It should be noted that these proceedings were initiated in September 1998 (T-1797-98) and December 1998 (T-2322-98). At the time, the plaintiff-appellant itself had determined that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was the only defendant competent to rule on the validity of the application. It was not until several months later, in October 1999, that the plaintiff-appellant filed proceedings to exclude the participation of the defendant-respondent.
[4] This delay seems unreasonable to me, especially as the question seeking a ruling that the defendant-respondent"s appearance was inadmissible had already been decided by Dubé J. of this Court in Les Aliments Prince Foods Inc. v. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada , T-1817-98, Dubé J., February 19, 1999.
[5] I entirely concur in the content of para. 19 of the reasons for judgment of Dubé J. in the aforesaid case, which in my opinion constitutes a full, complete and final answer to this point:
| It is thus of the very essence and structure of the Act that the federal institution in possession of the documents disclosure of which is requested should be a full party to the judicial review process provided for in the Act, and that it should inform the Court of its position on the "disclosability" of the documents in question. |
[6] I feel I must also mention the observations of Nadon J. in Desjardins v. Department of Finance of Canada, T-912-98, November 20, 1998, not reported:
| Section 48 expressly provides that a government institution that refuses disclosure has the burden of establishing that it is authorized to do so. Consequently, section 48 allows the government institution to take part in the argument. Section 44 applies when a government institution agrees to disclose. I am equally satisfied that the government institution may fully participate in the argument in such a case. In my view, it would be illogical to allow a government institution to participate fully only when it refuses disclosure. |
[7] As regards staying the running of deadlines, the plaintiff-appellant mentioned no facts supporting the allegation that the balance of convenience was in its favour. In the case at bar, an application to stay proceedings until the Federal Court of Appeal has disposed of the question of admissibility cannot be supported in fact or in law.
[8] It seems to the Court that all the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-appellant to date were intended solely to delay a final decision in these cases. In my opinion, this is an abuse of process.
[9] The motion is dismissed with costs.
| P. ROULEAU JUDGE |
OTTAWA, Ontario
December 30, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
Date: 19991230
Docket: T-2322-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 30, 1999
| BEFORE: Rouleau J. |
Between:
GROUPE DORCHESTER/ST-DAMASE, LA COOPÉRATIVE
AVICOLE, now known as
EXCELDOR COOPÉRATIVE AVICOLE,
Plaintiff-appellant,
And:
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA,
Defendant-respondent.
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] This case concerns an appeal from a decision by Richard Morneau, prothonotary, on October 21, 1999 in which he dismissed the motion to dismiss made by the plaintiff-appellant and ruled that the defendant-respondent was entitled to participate fully in the review application regarding communication of information sought by the mis-en-cause under the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1. In the same order, the prothonotary also dismissed the motion to stay the running of the deadlines made by the plaintiff-appellant.
[2] After examining the arguments of the plaintiff-appellant and the response of the defendant-respondent and of the defendant-mis-en-cause, I am persuaded that the federal agency Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has the locus standi to appear as a defendant in this matter. Although Mr. Morneau did not elaborate on his reasons for dismissing the application, the fact remains that the appellant had the burden of showing that the prothonotary"s discretionary order was vitiated by a flagrant error and that he exercised his power based on an incorrect principle or a misunderstanding of the facts. In the case at bar I am not persuaded that the plaintiff-appellant has discharged this burden.
[3] It should be noted that these proceedings were initiated in September 1998 (T-1797-98) and December 1998 (T-2322-98). At the time, the plaintiff-appellant itself had determined that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was the only defendant competent to rule on the validity of the application. It was not until several months later, in October 1999, that the plaintiff-appellant filed proceedings to exclude the participation of the defendant-respondent.
[4] This delay seems unreasonable to me, especially as the question seeking a ruling that the defendant-respondent"s appearance was inadmissible had already been decided by Dubé J. of this Court in Les Aliments Prince Foods Inc. v. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada , T-1817-98, Dubé J., February 19, 1999.
[5] I entirely concur in the content of para. 19 of the reasons for judgment of Dubé J. in the aforesaid case, which in my opinion constitutes a full, complete and final answer to this point:
| It is thus of the very essence and structure of the Act that the federal institution in possession of the documents disclosure of which is requested should be a full party to the judicial review process provided for in the Act, and that it should inform the Court of its position on the "disclosability" of the documents in question. |
[6] I feel I must also mention the observations of Nadon J. in Desjardins v. Department of Finance of Canada, T-912-98, November 20, 1998, not reported:
| Section 48 expressly provides that a government institution that refuses disclosure has the burden of establishing that it is authorized to do so. Consequently, section 48 allows the government institution to take part in the argument. Section 44 applies when a government institution agrees to disclose. I am equally satisfied that the government institution may fully participate in the argument in such a case. In my view, it would be illogical to allow a government institution to participate fully only when it refuses disclosure. |
[7] As regards staying the running of deadlines, the plaintiff-appellant mentioned no facts supporting the allegation that the balance of convenience was in its favour. In the case at bar, an application to stay proceedings until the Federal Court of Appeal has disposed of the question of admissibility cannot be supported in fact or in law.
[8] It seems to the Court that all the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff-appellant to date were intended solely to delay a final decision in these cases. In my opinion, this is an abuse of process.
[9] The motion is dismissed with costs.
| P. ROULEAU JUDGE |
OTTAWA, Ontario
December 30, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: T-1797-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Groupe Dorchester (St-Damase et al. v. |
| Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada et al. |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: December 17, 1999 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: ROULEAU J. |
| DATED: December 30, 1999 |
APPEARANCES:
| Catrin Kronström FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
| Rosemarie Millar FOR THE DEFENDANT |
| Michel Doyon FOR THE MIS-EN-CAUSE |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Kronström, Desjardins FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
Lévis, Quebec
| Gagné, Letarte FOR THE MIS-EN-CAUSE |
Québec, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Federal Department of Justice
Ottawa, Ontario
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: T-2322-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Groupe Dorchester (St-Damase et al. v. |
| Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada et al. |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: December 17, 1999 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: ROULEAU J. |
| DATED: December 30, 1999 |
APPEARANCES:
| Catrin Kronström FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
| Rosemarie Millar FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Kronström, Desjardins FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
Lévis, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Federal Department of Justice
Ottawa, Ontario