A-372-97
BETWEEN:
RICHARD SAUVÉ
Respondent
(Plaintiff)
- and -
THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellants
(Defendants)
- and -
BETWEEN:
SHELDON McCORRISTER, Chairman
LLOYD KNEZACK, Vice Chairman
on their own behalf and on behalf of the Stoney
Mountain Institution Inmate Welfare Committee,
and CLAIR WOODHOUSE, Chairman, AARON
SPENCE, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf
and on behalf of the Native Brotherhood Organization
of Stony Mountain Institution, and SERGE
BELANGER, EMILE A. BEAR and RANDY OPPONECHAW
Respondents
(Plaintiffs)
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
(Defendant)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Wednesday, May 21, 1997
Judgment rendered from the Bench, May 21, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DELIVERED BY: McDONALD J.A.
A-372-97
BETWEEN:
RICHARD SAUVÉ
Respondent
(Plaintiff)
- and -
THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellants
(Defendants)
- and -
BETWEEN:
SHELDON McCORRISTER, Chairman
LLOYD KNEZACK, Vice Chairman
on their own behalf and on behalf of the Stoney
Mountain Institution Inmate Welfare Committee,
and CLAIR WOODHOUSE, Chairman, AARON
SPENCE, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf
and on behalf of the Native Brotherhood Organization
of Stony Mountain Institution, and SERGE
BELANGER, EMILE A. BEAR and RANDY OPPONECHAW
Respondents
(Plaintiffs)
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
(Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Wednesday, May 21, 1997)
McDonald J.A.
Having heard the able arguments of counsel, we remain unconvinced that the motions judge made any reviewable error. The granting of a stay of judgment is a discretionary matter for the motions judge. As was held by this Court in Queen v. Canderel, [1994] 1 FC 3 at 9, in the absence of an error of law, this Court cannot interfere with a discretionary order of a judge.
The motions judge correctly turned his mind to the tripartite test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. He found that the Crown failed on both the second and third branches of that test. We have not been persuaded that the motions judge erred in applying the test. Even if this Court's overall decision may have been different, it is not open to an appellate court to interfere where the motions judge, in exercising his discretion, made no error in law.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
A-372-97
BETWEEN:
RICHARD SAUVÉ
Respondent
(Plaintiff)
- and -
THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellants
(Defendants)
- and -
BETWEEN:
SHELDON McCORRISTER, Chairman
LLOYD KNEZACK, Vice Chairman
on their own behalf and on behalf of the Stoney
Mountain Institution Inmate Welfare Committee,
and CLAIR WOODHOUSE, Chairman, AARON
SPENCE, Vice Chairman, on their own behalf
and on behalf of the Native Brotherhood Organization of Stony Mountain Institution,
and SERGE BELANGER, EMILE A. BEAR and
RANDY OPPONECHAW
Respondents
(Plaintiffs)
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
(Defendant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
STYLE OF CAUSE: The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada et al. v. Richard Sauvé et al.
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: McDonald J. A.
Mr. Glenn D. Joyal
Mr. Gerald L. Chartier for the Appellants
Mr. Fergus J. O'Connor for the Respondent - Sauvé
Mr. Arne Peltz for the Respondents - McCorrister et al.
Mr. George Thomson
Public Interest Law Centre Legal Aid Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba for the Respondents - McCorrister et al.
Email this Content