Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PRACTICE

Parties

Standing

Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations v. Canada (Attorney General)

T-994-01

2002 FCT 1001, Hugessen J.

25/9/02

6 pp.

Intervention--Motion under Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 369 for order removing first plaintiff as party on ground not necessary--Issue in action whether Firearms Act, regulations infringe treaty rights of treaty Indians in Saskatchewan-- Plaintiffs seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in action-- Attorney General not estopped from bringing motion because of failure to oppose previous motion correcting name of plaintiff--Previous motion involving correction of plaintiff's name, no determination whether plaintiff should be granted public interest standing--Previous motion unopposed by Attorney General not on consent--Party's self-description not determining party's standing--Question of standing determined by reference to twin tests of interest and necessity: Minister of Justice of Canada et al. v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575--Interest test--Incorporated entities representing Aboriginal people having no claim to direct interest in claims of treaty or Aboriginal rights--No standing on this basis--Plaintiffs claiming Firearms Act infringing treaty rights of individual members--Treaty rights belonging to members of plaintiff, not plaintiff--No evidence plaintiff suffering unique or special damage analogous to suffering in Daniels v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [2002] 4 F.C. 550 (T.D.)--Plaintiff not having direct interest in litigation, standing not granted on that ground--Necessity test--Plaintiff not necessary party as other plaintiffs having right to bring forward same challenge-- Plaintiff arguing analogy to intervener status: Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 738--Test for allowing intervener standing different at appellate and trial levels-- Plaintiff's intervention in separate case not establishing standing in present action--Motion allowed--Point raised in motion excessively technical and devoid of real interest--No order as to costs--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 369.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.