Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2009 FCA 186

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"

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:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: