Date:
20090605
Docket: A-208-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 191
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 5, 2009.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD
C.J.
Date: 20090605
Docket: A-208-09
Citation: 2009 FCA 191
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 proposed intervener, Amnesty International (Canadian Section,
English Branch) (AI) in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules
for:
1.
an order
granting leave for AI to intervene in the hearing of this appeal pursuant to
Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules;
2.
an order
granting leave to file a memorandum of fact and law up to 20 pages in length;
3.
an order
granting leave to make oral argument at the hearing of this appeal up to 15
minutes in length, time permitting;
4.
an order
that AI will not seek costs from any party;
5.
an order
that AI be served only with the memoranda of fact and law filed by the parties
to this appeal, including any other interveners;
6.
an order
that AI will not itself seek appeal of any judgment, but will be allowed to
participate in any appeal and be served with such appeal material;
7.
such
further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may
permit.
[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. The appeal has
been set down for hearing on June 23, 2009.
[4]
AI states
that its mission is to advance and promote international human rights at both
the international and national level.
[5]
It is
accepted that the proposed intervener has expertise on the issue of human
rights.
[6]
In its
supporting material, the proposed intervener states that it supports the
Judgment under appeal and the Respondent. However, the proposed intervener seeks to make supplemental argument.
[7]
The
appellants submit that AI’s motion for leave to intervene should be dismissed.
[8]
The appellants
assert that AI’s interest relates solely to the repercussions the Judgment will
have in future litigation involving human rights and that it has no pecuniary
or proprietary interest in the outcome of the appeal.
[9]
The appellants
also assert that AI is not directly affected by the case and has only a general
interest in the development of case law.
[10]
The
appellants further assert that AI has not established that the respondent is
unwilling or unable to present argument, case law or authorities representing
its views to the Court, or that its position will not be adequately defended by
the respondent if the intervention is not granted.
[11]
In
arriving at my decision to dismiss the motion to intervene brought by the proposed
intervener, 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.
[12]
As
I noted in an earlier decision (2009 FCA 186) denying a motion by the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association for leave to intervene in the same appeal,
at its highest,
AI’s interest is jurisprudential in nature. It is well-established that this
kind of interest alone cannot justify an application to intervene.
[13]
Accordingly,
the motion to intervene will be dismissed.
"J. Richard"
Email this Content