Vancouver Wharves Ltd. v. Canada ( Regional Safety Officer )
T-1391-95
Hargrave P.
7/2/96
18 pp.
Attorney General seeking leave to be added as respondent in judicial review proceeding in substitution for Regional Safety Officer (RSO)-Applicant marine terminal facility found in contravention of Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Regulations by RSO-Applicant naming RSO as respondent in judicial review of RSO directive-Issue whether RSO, rather than Attorney General, properly named as respondent-Review of case law regarding status of federal boards, commissions and other tribunals in judicial review proceedings-Case law, Federal Court Act, and Rules evolving from situation in which tribunals constituting proper respondents in judicial review proceedings through to present situation where, by reason of Rules 1600, 1602, and Act, s. 18.1: (1) proper respondents only "interested persons" or Attorney General of Canada; and (2) tribunals participating as intervenor, except in limited circumstances-"Interested person" must be adverse in interest and person having been heard in proceedings-Where no parties adverse in interest, Attorney General of Canada named, pursuant to Act, s. 18.1, to represent public interest and to present point of view differing from applicant-Decision-making entity under appeal reduced to intervenor status and having limited participation rights except under certain circumstances-Possibility tribunal named as party to judicial review where tribunal initiating complaint itself pursuant to enabling statute (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 2 F.C. 447 (C.A.)); also limited role for tribunal where defending jurisdiction (Adams v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner) et al. (1995), 182 N.R. 354 (F.C.A.))-Such circumstances not existing in present instance, thus RSO not proper respondent in proceeding-However, as presence of respondent necessary to adequately canvass points at issue, and as workplace safety clearly of public interest, Attorney General of Canada appropriate respondent-Joe (M.) et al. v. John (M.) et al. (1990), 34 F.T.R. 280 (F.C.T.D.) restriction prohibiting Attorney General from filing affidavit material where appearing in completely neutral role of amicus curiae not applicable in present instance-Attorney General's participation not limited by reason of delay as: (1) Attorney General not responsible for delay; and (2) no other respondent can set out other side of issues-Motion granted-Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations, SOR/86-304-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5)-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 1600 (as enacted by SOR/9243, s. 19), 1620 (as enacted idem; SOR/94-41, s. 14).