Sunshine Village Corp. v. Canada ( Minister of Canadian Heritage )
T-808-95
Reed J.
17/5/95
7 pp.
Motion to strike out respondent status for members of environmental assessment panel in judicial review proceedings of Minister's decision to appoint panel to review applicant's Long-Range Development Plan -- Applicant submitting panel members not "interested parties" pursuant to R. 1602(3) -- While R. 1602(3) requiring naming of persons adverse to applicant's interest, R. 1602(3) not precluding naming of others, including panel members when appropriate -- "Interested party" as defined in R. 1600 limited to those persons heard by tribunal; thus only interested persons who were "heard" by tribunal required to be named as parties -- Other persons however not precluded from being named respondents in appropriate circumstances -- Applicant submitting respondents cannot be parties to application on basis of Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 2 F.C. 447 (C.A.) decision refusing Commission respondent status in judicial review application and requiring it to seek intervenor status -- Latter decision applying only where: (1) relevant tribunal seeking to make itself party on own motion; and (2) impugned decision one rendered by relevant tribunal -- Case at bar satisfying neither requirement -- Respondent status necessary due to nature of remedy sought, i.e. injunctive remedy against individuals preventing them from attempting to act as members-Applicant's submission proceeding against individuals prohibited by Act, s. 35(6) rejected: s. 35(6) shielding members from legal action resulting from their decision, s. 35(6) not intending to prevent challenge of validity of panel members' appointment-Motion dismissed -- Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, s. 35(6) -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1600 (as enacted by SOR/92-43, s. 19), 1602(3) (as enacted idem).