Date:
20121101
Docket: A-6-12
Citation: 2012 FCA 274
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL
AARON SPIDEL
Appellant
and
CANADA
(ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Respondent
Heard
at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 31, 2012.
Judgment
delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 1, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
MAINVILLE J.A
CONCURRED
IN BY: BLAIS
C.J.
SHARLOW J.A
Date:
20121031
Docket: A-6-12
Citation: 2012 FCA 274
CORAM: BLAIS
C.J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL
AARON SPIDEL
Appellant
and
CANADA
(ATTORNEY GENERAL)
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
MAINVILLE J.A.
[1]
This
concerns an appeal from an order of Justice Barnes of the Federal Court
dismissing an appeal from an order of Prothonotary Lafrenière.
[2]
The
Prothonotary ordered the appellant to return to the respondent privileged
documents which had inadvertently been provided to him. He also ordered that
certain paragraphs and exhibits be struck from the appellant’s affidavit sworn
in support of an application for judicial review filed in the Federal Court.
[3]
The
appellant acknowledges that the concerned documents are privileged
communications, and he has accordingly returned these documents to the
respondents. He also acknowledges that the judicial review proceedings
underlying the order have been resolved.
[4]
The
only ground of appeal pursued by the appellant concerns a challenge to the
jurisdiction and authority of the Federal Court to issue the order for the
return of the privileged documents. In the circumstances at hand, where
privilege is acknowledged, the documents have been returned, and the underlying
litigation has been resolved, this is now an academic issue.
[5]
Moreover,
none of the factors set out in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General),
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 militate in favour of exercising our discretion to decide
this issue despite it being moot. There is no longer an adversarial context
between the parties, and neither judicial economy nor the public interest militate
in favour of deciding the issue in this appeal, particularly in light of this
Court’s decision in Sellathurai v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FCA 223, [2012] 2 F.C.R. 243.
[6]
Furthermore,
the appellant no longer challenges in this appeal that part of the Federal
Court judge’s order confirming, with certain corrections, the Prothonotary’s
order striking out certain portions of the appellant’s affidavit.
[7]
This
appeal should consequently be dismissed with costs in the lump sum amount of
$900, including disbursements and taxes.
"Robert M.
Mainville"
“I agree
Pierre Blais C.J.”
“I
agree
K. Sharlow J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-6-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: Michael
Aaron Spidel v.
Canada (Attorney General)
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: October
31, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MAINVILLE
J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: BLAIS C.J.
SHARLOW J.A.
DATED: November 1, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
Michael
Aaron Spidel
|
FOR
THE APPLICANT
|
|
Liliane
Bantourakis
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
N/A
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|