Vandenberg v. Canada (Attorney General), docket T-1964-95

     T-1964-95

B E T W E E N:

     DARRYL VANDENBERG

     Applicant

     - and -

     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

CAMPBELL J.

     Let the attached transcript of my Reasons for Decision delivered orally from the Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, the 8^th day of May, 1997, now edited, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.

                         Judge

OTTAWA

May 27, 1997

THE COURT:

I do not think it is necessary to adjourn to give reasons on this particular aspect of this case, because I think it is fairly straightforward.

I have here the decision which is contested, and it is contained in the letter of December the 5th, 1994, regarding Mr. Darryl Vandenberg and his being granted a conditional license, and there are a number of conditions, of course, specified and, in fact, that these conditions would not be lifted.

The letter sets out the reasons for this decision, and they relate to a context only as it relates to Mr. Joseph Vandenberg. In fact, it specifies that Mr. Joseph Vandenberg had been convicted of a number of offenses, that his permit had been suspended for two years, that the facilities and birds held by him were simply transferred to Mr. Darryl Vandenberg, which is a point in fact which is not contested and amply proved, that the concerns here were for the conservation of the resource and to ensure that Mr. Vandenberg, Mr. Joseph Vandenberg would have no further opportunity to engage in his illegal activities, and, therefore, also since Mr. Joseph Vandenberg had still remained active in his business, even though he was suspended, apparently using Mr. Darryl Vandenberg's name instead of his own, they were not prepared to lift the certificate.

Now, the argument is these criterion, these various factors are improper or irrelevant. I cannot agree with this. The facts are that Mr. Darryl Vandenberg and Mr. Joseph Vandenberg were involved in a joint enterprise, whether you characterize it as a business, or whether you characterize it as a hobby. There is no doubt about it. They were involved jointly in this enterprise.

It is also important that Darryl Vandenberg's only involvement was due to his father's inability to operate the enterprise, so consequently he came in as the license-holder but in the context of his father still being the primary operative.

Now, those facts are what fueled this particular decision, and they are on the record. The suspicions are all there. The questions about past misconduct and the fear of present misconduct, they are all there. Frankly, I cannot see what other reasons would be more relevant than the ones given, because the Minister has a prerogative to impose conditions.

This is a decision taken in the full context, which is what I think would be reasonable to expect. I am not trying to separate Mr. Darryl Vandenberg out, which creates a fictitious situation, frankly, because his operation inside of this and his only reason to have the license was because of his father's direct involvement.

And the fears or suspicions caused by all of this, I think, are warranted. I am not saying I find them true or anything else. I am just saying on that fact base, you can see how the decision arose. So I do not believe in any way they are improper or irrelevant. I think they were properly considered and, indeed, substantiate the decision. So this application is dismissed.

So on the question of costs, now --

MR. RENOUF:

My Lord, in connection with the Joseph Vandenberg matter, over the lunch break I looked at Rule 1618, which is the governing Rule here that no costs are payable on an application for Judicial Review unless the Court for special reasons so orders, and I tried to find a special reason on the record of this case, my Lord, but I, in candor, have to admit that I was not able to find one, and I so advised my client, and my instructions are to not seek costs.

THE COURT:

No Order as to costs.