|
Standing - Non-parties. Lukács v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Lukács v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appeal of an IRPA s.87 ['Application for non-disclosure — judicial review and appeal'] order made at the Federal Court in the context of a JR challenging the entry into Canada of people travelling from Hungary. The order was with respect to 'confidential information' that was "inadvertently disclosed", and it's effect was to "enjoin() Dr. Gabor Lukács and others, from retaining, disclosing or disseminating certain confidential information". In this quote the court considered, and dismissed, the argument that a 'mandatory order' could not be made against a non-party:[61] Dr. Lukács also argued that a mandatory order could not be made against a non-party. Since he and others were not parties to the motion for injunctive relief, Dr. Lukács argues that the Court had no jurisdiction to make a mandatory order against them. This argument is without merit. Equitable relief in the form of an injunction may be issued against non-parties where it appears to the court to be just or convenient that the order should be made (Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 824 at para. 28). . Blake v. Blake
In Blake v. Blake (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court considered the right of a non-party to be heard where an order will have an direct effect on them:[59] In a situation where a judge’s decision will have a direct impact on someone who is not a party to the dispute there is an obligation to allow that person to be heard. The Court of Appeal makes this clear in Fontaine v Canada (Attorney General) 2018 ONCA 1023, at para 21, as follows:Contrary to what the respondent argues, it is precisely because the Eastern Administrative Judge was exercising his judicial functions that he owed the appellant an elevated duty of procedural fairness and natural justice. Of the many principles underlying the Canadian judicial system, generally those who will be subject to an order of the court are to be given notice of the legal proceeding and afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions: A.(L.L.) v. B.(A.), 1995 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536, at para. 27. [60] Along the same vein, Lamer C.J. and Sopinka J. provide similar guidance in A. (L.L.) v B.(A) 1995 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 536 at para 27:The one question that remains is whether both a complainant, a third party to the proceedings (whether or not an appellant, but here one of the appellants), and the Crown, a party to the proceedings, have standing in third party appeals. There is no doubt in my mind that they do. The audi alteram partem principle, which is a rule of natural justice and one of the tenets of our legal system, requires that courts provide an opportunity to be heard to those who will be affected by the decisions.
|
