Date:20000605
Docket:A-327-99
CORAM: LINDEN, J.A.
ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
MALONE, J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, June 5, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Monday, June 5, 2000
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LINDEN, J.A. |
Date: 20000605
Docket: A-327-99
CORAM: LINDEN, J.A.
ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
MALONE, J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Monday, June 5, 2000)
LINDEN J.A.
[1] The detailed arguments of counsel for the appellant have not persuaded us that the Motions Judge erred in the conclusion she arrived at nor in the reasons given.
[2] This case is quite different than Martinoff v. R. (1993), 18 Admin. L.R. 191, where jurisdiction was completely abandoned.
[3] In our view, there was no such complete abandonment in this case. Nor was there any fettering of discretion, nor any exceeding of jurisdiction, nor any refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
[4] The Ministers, in these accords, have agreed that a government would not act in a role that was being discharged by another government pursuant to these accords where the obligation to perform such a role was accepted by a government. In the event, that a government is unable to act, there are provisions for alternative plans to be developed by other governments. The Federal Government has not withdrawn from the picture, as suggested by appellant"s counsel
[5] We see no legal difficulties, at this time, in this effort to coordinate and cooperate, which is the main purpose of the accords.
[6] As for the costs matter, even if the learned Motions Judge might be thought to have wrongly fettered her discretion with respect to costs, we see no reason to disturb her award in favour of the respondent.
[7] Under Rule 400(1)(h) the public interest in having proceedings litigated might in some cases justify no award of costs against unsuccessful public interest litigants. However, legal proceedings are costly and where unmeritorious proceedings are launched by public interest groups, they are not immune from an award of costs. We are of the view that this should be the case here.
[8] The appeal will be dismissed both on the merits and as to costs, with costs to the respondent.
"A. M. Linden"
J.A.
[9] FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT |
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT BY: LINDEN J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Monday, June 5, 2000
APPEARANCES: Mr. P. Muldoon, and
Ms. T. McClenghan
Mr. C. Amerasinghe, and
Ms. S. Campbell
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Canadian Environmental Law Association |
Barristers & Solicitors
401-517 College St.
Toronto, Ontario
M6G 4A2
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20000605
Docket: A-327-99
BETWEEN:
| THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION |
Appellant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT |
Respondent
Email this Content