PRACTICE |
Parties |
Standing |
Coalition of Concerned Congregations v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
A-179-99
2002 FCA 20, Stone J.A.
18/1/02
8 pp.
Appeal from order dismissing appellants' motion for standing to seek reconsideration, clarification of December 21, 1998 order made under Citizenship Act, s. 18(1)(b) determining respondent Dueck not obtaining Canadian citizenship by fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances--Appellants complaining order too broad, wish to have it restricted so that future notices may be given to same respondent on grounds other than one contained in notice found not to be established on evidence--Appellants invoking Federal Court Rules, 1998, rr. 104, 397 and Court's inherent power to clarify, correct reasons for order--R. 104(1)(b) empowering Court to add as party person who ought to have been joined or whose presence before Court necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in proceeding may be effectively, completely determined--R. 397 enabling Court, at request of party, to reconsider terms of order on ground order not according with reasons given or that matter that should have been dealt with overlooked or accidentally omitted--R. 397(2) authorizing Court to correct clerical mistakes, errors, omissions--Respondent Dueck submitting Court lacking jurisdiction to hear, determine appeal because of limiting language of Citizenship Act, s. 18(3) i.e. decision of Trial Division under subsection 18(1) final, and notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no appeal lying therefrom--Issue of jurisdiction yet to be authoritatively decided--But not necessary to express final view on jurisdictional issue given disposition of appeal--Assuming Court possessing jurisdiction, unnecessary to address question of constitutionality of s. 18(3), and merits of appeal addressed --Noël J. gave sufficient weight to all relevant considerations, committed no error in making discretionary order--Only "party" may move for "reconsideration" of order pursuant to r. 397(1)--Appellants not parties--Attempts to be joined as interveners at that stage unsuccessful--R. 397(2) not applicable as no "clerical mistake, error or omission"--Nor did Noël J. err in refusing to join appellants as parties pursuant to r. 104(1)(b)--Dispute involved Dueck, Minister--No evidence presence of appellants as parties necessary for issue to be effectually, completely settled or that appellants should be bound by outcome--Appellants' desire to have Court cut down breadth of finding so as to allow Minister to make fresh attempts on different grounds to revoke Dueck's citizenship not contemplated by r. 104(1)(b)--Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Association of Parents for Fairness in Education et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549 holding interested non-party may be granted standing to appeal from final decision of court where parties decline to do so provided criteria set forth therein satisfied--Noël J. clearly concluding criteria not satisfied--Appellants claiming their interest seeing that correct result achieved by Court in war crimes litigation-- Minister adequately serving that interest--Appeal dismissed--Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29, s. 18(3)--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 104, 397.