Date: 19991201
Docket: A-127-99
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1999
C O R A M: STRAYER J.A.
B E T W E E N:
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Appellant
" and "
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
O R D E R
The motion of Kenneth M. Narvey to be admitted as an intervenor in the hearing of this appeal is dismissed.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
Date: 19991201
Docket: A-127-99
C O R A M: STRAYER J.A.
B E T W E E N:
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Appellant
" and "
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
STRAYER J.A.
[1] This is a motion by one Kenneth M. Narvey to intervene in the hearing of this appeal.
[2] The appeal was filed on March 1, 1999. The hearing dates, 3 days commencing on December 6, 1999, were fixed by the Judicial Administrator on July 28, 1999. It is apparent from correspondence on the file that the would-be intervenor Narvey had been following the events concerning fixing of dates, having himself written to ask the Court not to fix the hearing on certain dates.
[3] As far as I can ascertain, no further communications were received by the Court from him until he filed this motion on November 30, 1999, over four months after the hearing dates were fixed. He also seeks leave to file a factum for the appeal of 40 pages (10 pages more than are normally permitted to parties). As there is no time for the parties to respond to the Court in respect of this motion, prior to the hearing, the only opportunity for the Court to hear such a motion would be at the opening of the appeal itself. If the intervention were allowed at that time, the parties would not have adequate time to respond to the arguments raised in his 40 page factum (which was served on them November 29, 1999).
[4] The moving party has informed the Court that the parties have no objection to his motion being heard at the opening of the hearing. Be that as it may, the Court is not prepared to entertain such a motion at this late date. It is not only a discourtesy to the Court and to the parties to be applying at this time; it is also potentially disruptive of the orderly process of the hearing. I have been unable to find any explanation in Narvey's material as to why he has delayed until 6 days before the hearing to file his motion. It is no excuse, as he suggests, that additional material was ordered added to the appeal book, by consent of the parties, on November 24, 1999. His motion should have been made several weeks before then.
[5] I might add that the material filed does not disclose why the moving party has something unique to offer to the Court that would justify such an intervention. The points which he wishes to make in opposition of the appeal are essentially arguments of law which the parties are no doubt capable of addressing. He has already provided them with his draft memorandum from which the respondent can derive such assistance as she can in responding to this appeal.
[6] I note further that the would-be intervenor seeks to have an additional Appeal Book filed, as prepared by him. It is not open to intervenors to change the record on an appeal: they must take the record as it is.
[7] For all these reasons the motion must be dismissed.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
Email this Content