Docket: 17-A-32
Citation: 2018 FCA 80
Present: WEBB J.A.
| BETWEEN:
|
| AIR CANADA
|
| Applicant
|
| and
|
| JEREMY COOPERSTOCK and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
|
| Respondents
|
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 18, 2018.
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
|
WEBB J.A.
|
Docket: 17-A-32
Citation: 2018 FCA 80
Present: WEBB J.A.
| BETWEEN:
|
| AIR CANADA
|
| Applicant
|
| and
|
| JEREMY COOPERSTOCK and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
|
| Respondents
|
REASONS FOR ORDER
WEBB J.A.
[1]
Dr. Gábor Lukács has brought a motion for leave to intervene in Air Canada’s motion for an order for leave to appeal from a decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency.
[2]
Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (Rules) provides that:
| 109(1) The Court may, on motion, grant leave to any person to intervene in a proceeding.
|
109(1) La Cour peut, sur requête, autoriser toute personne à intervenir dans une instance.
|
| (emphasis added)
|
(soulignement ajouté)
|
[3]
The term “proceeding”
is not defined in the Rules. However, Rule 61 provides that:
| 61(1) Subject to subsection (4), a proceeding referred to in rule 169 shall be brought as an action.
|
61(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), l’instance visée à la règle 169 est introduite par voie d’action.
|
| (2) Subject to subsection (4), a proceeding referred to in rule 300 shall be brought as an application.
|
(2) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), l’instance visée à la règle 300 est introduite par voie de demande.
|
| (3) A proceeding referred to in rule 335 shall be brought as an appeal.
|
(3) L’instance visée à la règle 335 est introduite par voie d’appel.
|
| (4) Where by or under an Act of Parliament a person is given the option of bringing a proceeding referred to in rule 169 or 300 as either an action or an application, the person may commence the proceeding as an action or as an application.
|
(4) Lorsque l’instance visée aux règles 169 ou 300 est engagée sous le régime d’une loi fédérale ou d’un texte d’application de celle-ci qui en permet l’introduction par voie d’action ou de demande, le demandeur peut l’introduire de l’une ou l’autre de ces façons.
|
[4]
As well, the definitions of “action”
, “appeal”
and “application”
in section 2 of the Rules each provide that these are proceedings but the definition of “motion”
is that a motion is “a request to the Court under, or to enforce, these Rules”
. As a result of Rule 61 and these definitions, a motion would not be a proceeding. In Gholipour v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 99, at para. 8, this Court confirmed that a motion is not a proceeding.
[5]
Therefore, proceedings, for the purposes of the Rules, are actions, applications for judicial review, or appeals. A motion for an order for leave to appeal is not a proceeding. Rather, the proceeding will only commence once a notice of appeal is filed, if leave to file the notice of appeal is granted. As a result, there is no right to intervene under Rule 109 in Air Canada’s motion for an order for leave to appeal from a decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency.
[6]
Dr. Gábor Lukács’ motion for leave to intervene in Air Canada’s motion for an order for leave to appeal from a decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency is dismissed without costs.
"Wyman W. Webb"
Email this Content