[2016] 3 F.C.R. D-15
Practice
Motion requesting directions as to procedure for making submissions on Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 318(2) objection — Applicant requesting, under Rules, r. 317, that respondent transmit record it relied upon when making decisions subject of underlying application for judicial review — Respondent objecting under Rules, r. 318(2) — What standpoint should Court adopt when determining validity of objection under r. 318(2)? — Court not reviewing administrative decision maker’s decision to object — When determining validity of objection, Court tasked with deciding content of evidentiary record in proceeding before it — Court having much remedial flexibility in determining validity of objection — Court may craft remedy furthering, reconciling (1) meaningful review of administrative decisions in accordance with Rules, r. 3, Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.4; (2) procedural fairness; (3) protection of confidentiality interests — Court’s determination of r. 318(2) objection can result in order of any shape, size, limited only by creativity, imagination of counsel, courts — In some cases, possible to determine administrative decision maker’s r. 318(2) objection solely on basis of reasons provided — However, present case complex one requiring evidence establishing objection — Respondent therefore ordered to file motion record under Rules, r. 369 seeking order vindicating its objection.
Lukács v. Canada (Transportation Agency) (A-39-16, 2016 FCA 103, Stratas J.A., reasons for order dated April 5, 2016, 10 pp.)