DOCSLIB.ORG

2016-2017 YEAR in REVIEW in 2016-2017, the Supreme Court Advocacy Institute Completed Its Tenth Year of Operation, During Which

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016-2017 YEAR in REVIEW in 2016-2017, the Supreme Court Advocacy Institute Completed Its Tenth Year of Operation, During Which 2016-2017 YEAR IN REVIEW National Advisory Committee In 2016-2017, the Supreme Court Advocacy Institute completed its tenth year of The Honourable Frank Iacobucci, Chairperson operation, during which it continued to provide counsel appearing for argument C.C., Q.C., ​ The Honourable Gérald V. La Forest, before the Supreme Court of Canada with rigorous practice sessions. The Honorary Chairperson C.C., Q.C., ​ Institute’s advocacy program aims to increase the effectiveness and quality of The Honourable Peter Cory, C.C., advocacy by simulating for counsel the experience of oral argument before the Honorary Chairperson C.D. Q.C., ​ highest court. A panel of seasoned Supreme Court advocates hears counsel’s The Honourable John C. Major, C.C., Honorary Chairperson Q.C., ​ argument and offers candid and constructive feedback to assist counsel in The Honourable Michel Bastarache, making their oral submissions effective and helpful to the Court. Honorary Chairperson C.C., ​ The Honourable Louise Charron, Honorary Chairperson Demand for the Institute’s advocacy program is high. Over the past year, the C.C., ​ The Honourable Ian Binnie, C.C., Institute provided free, non-partisan advocacy sessions in 40% of cases before Honorary Chairperson Q.C., ​ the Court. Participation rates were particularly high in Ontario (where 57% of The Honourable Marie Deschamps, Honorary Chairperson appeals benefitted from the Institute’s services) and Alberta (where 57% of C.C., ​ appeals benefitted from the Institute’s services). The Institute’s advocacy The Honourable Morris J. Fish, C.C., Honorary Chairperson Q.C., ​ program was used for a wide range of appeals in civil and criminal matters, by The Honourable Louis LeBel, C.C., counsel working in private practice as well as in government, and by seasoned Honorary Chairperson advocates as well as first-time counsel before the Court. The Honourable Marshall Rothstein, Honorary Chairperson C.C., Q.C., ​ The Honourable Thomas A. Sixty-five (65) lawyers donated their time as advocacy advisors for the Institute, Honorary Cromwell, C.C., ​ Chaiperson offering advice to counsel based on their own experience before the Court. Member for Many participated in more than one session, illustrating once again the Sheila Block, L.S.M., ​ Ontario dedication of our advocacy advisors to the bar, to the public, and to access to Member for Frank R. Foran, Q.C., ​ Alberta justice. The Institute continues to receive extremely appreciative feedback from Member for counsel who have used the advocacy program. Counsel are grateful for the time Daniel Jutras, Ad. E., ​ Quebec and effort the advisors devote to the sessions, and note that the mock hearings Member for Richard Peck, Q.C., ​ are a highly valuable aspect of their preparation, resulting in improved oral British Columbia argument before the Court. Member for Richard J. Scott, Q.C., ​ Atlantic Canada Member for The Institute’s advocacy sessions are organized by session coordinators in each Richard Wolson, Q.C., ​ Manitoba province. For their invaluable assistance in delivering the Institute’s services, we Executive Shantona Chaudhury, ​ Director thank Mila Shah (British Columbia), April Grosse (Alberta), Sacha Paul Executive (Manitoba), Colleen Bauman (Ontario: Ottawa), Erin Dann (Ontario: Toronto), Grégoire Webber, M.S.M., ​ Director Audrey Boctor (Quebec), and Jula Hughes (Atlantic provinces). Member at Owen Rees, M.S.M., ​ Large A number of Institute members were appointed to the bench in the course of the Member at Pierre-Jérôme Bouchard, ​ Large 2016-2017 year. At the risk of omission, we congratulate Justice Cynthia Member at Large Michael Feder, ​ Petersen for her appointment to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Justice John Laskin for his appointment to the Federal Court of Appeal, Justice Russell - 2 - Silverstein for his appointment to the Ontario Court of Justice, and Justice John Hunter for his appointment to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. With also celebrate the retirement of Neil Finkelstein for years of service as an advocacy advisor in Toronto and John G. Martland, Q.C., and Roderick A. McLennan, Q.C. for years of service as advocacy advisors in Alberta and as members of the Regional Committee for Alberta. Executive Director and founder Grégoire Webber returned to the Institute in August 2017 after serving as Legal Affairs Advisor to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He thanks Michael Feder and Pierre-Jérôme Bouchard for their support as acting Executive Directors during this period. We estimate that in the 2016-2017 year, the Institute’s advocacy advisors, committee members, and executive directors contributed approximately $465,950 in pro bono services to the benefit of parties and their counsel before ​ ​ the Supreme Court of Canada, bringing the Institute’s total pro bono ​ contribution since 2006 to approximately $4.52 million. The Institute’s ability to provide its advocacy program to all counsel without charge is made possible by the generous funding provided by the Advocates’ Society, the American College of Trial Lawyers Canadian Foundation, the Law Foundation of Ontario, and the Ontario Bar Association Foundation. Thanks to the willingness of all participants to donate their time on a pro bono basis, the ​ Institute maintains low-cost operations. We thank Torys LLP for continuing to provide the Institute with pro bono services in support of our charitable status. ​ ​ .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Daniel G.C. Glover Page 1 Managing IP Milestone Case of the Year for 2016
    Daniel Glover is national co-lead of our Cyber/Data Group and a Daniel G.C. member of our Intellectual Property, Privacy, Technology, Consumer Glover Products & Retail Group, Franchise & Distribution, and Appellate Groups. Partner Toronto Daniel has significant experience in all aspects of information law. His [email protected] practice takes a 360-degree approach to data: he helps clients extract the tremendous value inherent in data, while at the same time t. +1 416-601-8069 managing the complex risks associated with data. He has worked on the highest-stakes files in the field, having advised clients in relation to the three largest data breaches in Canadian history and having argued landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and other leading appellate courts. Daniel G.C. His insights come from significant exposure to the many different Glover areas of law touching on the exploitation and protection information, Partner including privacy, cybersecurity, breach response, copyright and Toronto trademark infringement, privilege, anti-spam and marketing compliance, confidential information, competition law, constitutional [email protected] law, and Internet law. t. +1 416-601-8069 This exposure touches upon a broad diversity of industries. Daniel has advised numerous clients in the technology, social media, consumer Bar Admission products, retail, financial services, insurance, entertainment, gaming, automotive, industrial and health services fields, including in the class Ontario 2006 action setting and also before key privacy, health privacy, and Law School marketing regulators across Canada. University of Toronto In his litigation practice, Daniel delivered oral submissions on behalf of Practices the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and other creative industry stakeholders in the landmark decision of Appellate Litigation IP Litigation Equustek Solutions Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin
    Paper prepared for the 2018 CPSA Annual Conference – Please do not cite nor circulate without permission HOW MUCH FRENCH DO THEY SPEAK ANYWAY? A BILINGUALISM INDEX FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, 1985-2013 Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin & Tiago Rubin Draft paper prepared for the CPSA 2018 Annual Conference. Please do not cite nor circulate without permission. Mandatory bilingualism for Supreme Court judges tantalizes Canadian politics for at least ten years now. The advocates of judicial bilingualism have repeatedly tried (and failed) to enshrine into law the requirement for Supreme Court justices to be functionally bilingual, i.e. the ability to “read materials and understand oral argument without the need for translation or interpretation in French and English”. For them, integrating mandatory bilingualism as a legislative requirement in the appointment process is a panacea. Their opponents argue that language proficiency in French should not be a sine qua non condition for Supreme Court justiceship and that requiring it would prevent excellent candidates from being appointed. However, despite the fact that empirical statements abound on both sides, there is very little empirical evidence regarding the actual impact of unilingualism and bilingualism on Canadian judicial institutions and simply no evidence whatsoever about its impact on individual judges’ behavior. Building on our ongoing research on judicial bilingualism, in this paper we try to evaluate the level of bilingualism of individual justices. What our findings suggest is that the behavior of Francophone and Anglophone bilinguals is influenced by the linguistic competency of their colleagues. Our findings also suggest that some Anglophone justices that are deemed to be bilinguals do not behave very differently from their unilingual colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium:Jurocracy and Distrust:Reconsidering The
    User Name: Tyler Cooper Date and Time: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:05:00 PM EDT Job Number: 89258756 Document (1) 1. SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 Client/Matter: -None- | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis Tyler Cooper SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE January, 2005 Reporter 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 * Length: 27441 words Author: Judith Resnik* * Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School. © Judith Resnik 2005. This article stems from presentations at the Symposium, Jurocracy, at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in March of 2004 and at the Symposium, Judicial Appointments in a Free and Democratic Society, at the University of Toronto Law School in April of 2004, and builds on my articles "Uncle Sam Modernizes his Justice System": Inventing the District Courts of the Twentieth Century, 90 Geo. L.J. 607 (2002), Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 924 (2000), and Changing Criteria for Judging Judges, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 889 (1990), as well as on testimony that I submitted to subcommittees of the United States Senate and of the Canadian House of Commons on the topic of judicial nominations. I benefited from comments of other participants, the exchanges at these symposia and hearings, and from discussions with Seyla Benhabib and Deborah Hensler. My thanks to Joseph Blocher, Andrew Goldstein, Paige Herwig, Johanna Kalb, Alison Mackenzie, Jennifer Peresie, Bertrall Ross, Kirby Smith, Laura Smolowe, and Steven Wu for research assistance, to Gene Coakley for all his efforts to locate relevant materials, and to Denny Curtis, Vicki Jackson, Roy Mersky, Roberta Romano, and Albert Yoon for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Allocution De La Juge Suzanne Côté : Réception De Bienvenue
    Allocution de la juge Suzanne Côté : Réception de bienvenue The judges of The Supreme Court of Les juges de La Cour suprême du Canada and the University of Ottawa’s Canada et la Faculté de droit de l’Uni- Faculty of Law have always maintained versité d’Ottawa ont toujours entretenu close personal and professional ties. It is d’étroites relations, tant personnelles tradition to hold a welcoming reception que professionnelles. La tradition veut for each newly appointed judge to the que l’on tienne une réception d’accueil Supreme Court of Canada. The Chief Jus- pour chaque juge nouvellement nommé tice and Puisne Judges of the Supreme à la Cour suprême du Canada. La juge Court of Canada, Deans of the Common en chef et les juges puînés de la Cour Law and Civil Law Sections, professors suprême du Canada, les doyennes des and students are invited to attend. In sections respectives de common law keeping with this tradition, the Faculty et de droit civil, le corps professoral et of Law celebrated on March 19th, 2015 the la population étudiante sont conviés à appointment of the Honourable Justice cette réception. Pour perpétuer cette Suzanne Côté. Here are her full remarks tradition, la Faculté de droit a célébré, le at this event. 19 mars 2015, la nomination de l’hono- rable juge Suzanne Côté. Voici la version intégrale de ses remarques lors de cet évènement. 283 Allocution de la juge Suzanne Côté : Réception de bienvenue Madame la Juge en chef, Chers collègues de la Cour suprême, Chers collègues des autres cours et tribunaux, Mesdames les Doyennes des sections de common law et de droit civil, Chers anciens confrères et consœurs du Barreau, Mesdames et Messieurs, C’est aveC beauCoup de plaisir que j’ai reçu l’invitation de Mesdames les Doyennes Des Rosiers1 et Lévesque2 d’assister à cette réception laquelle, me dit-on, s’inscrit dans une tradition maintenant bien ancrée de souhaiter 1 La doyenne Nathalie Des Rosiers a reçu sa licence en droit de l’Université de Montréal et a obtenu sa maitrise en droit de la Harvard Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Context Education Project (SCEP) Was a Special Project of the National Judicial Institute Between 1996-2003
    NATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE, CANADA THE SOCIAL CONTEXT EDUCATION PROJECT SUMMARY The Social Context Education Project (SCEP) was a special project of the National Judicial Institute between 1996-2003. The program had two phases: • Phase I concentrated on full-court education seminars in every province of Canada. These seminars were designed to create a common base of information and understanding of the relevance and applicability of social context among all judges in Canada. Over 20 programs were held involving over 1000 judges. • Phase II focused on developed skilled judicial education leaders in this area through an intensive program of judicial faculty development. Curriculum development was another focus of Phase II. Since 2003, social context has been integrated as a regular component of NJI work through adoption of the guiding principle that judicial education should always be ‘three dimensional’ (substantive law, skills development and social context awareness) and designation of a member of the senior management team responsible for social context integration. The Social Context Education Program: • Built on work initiated in Canada by the Western Judicial Education Centre • Was mandated by the Canadian Judicial Council and supported by Chief Judges. • Built from the premise that understanding social context and integrating it into judicial processes and judicial decision-making is mandated by law. • Was developed in synergy with jurisprudential developments explicitly recognizing the legitimacy of contextual inquiry in judicial decision-making. • Has proceeded on the basis that social context education is a long-term process not an inoculation. The long-term goal is integration of social context into all forms of judicial education as an automatic part of the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • CCPI Memorandum of Argument for Application to Intervene
    Court File No. A-408-09 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Appellant And MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENER THE CHARTER COMMITTEE ON POVERTY ISSUES PART ONE: FACTS A. The Proposed Intervener – The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) 1. The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) was granted intervener status at the Federal Court in the present case to address “issues arising from the requirement to pay fees to process Humanitarian and Compassionate (H & C) Applications for permanent residence pursuant to the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] 1 and the impact of such fees on persons living in poverty.” 1 Decision of Prothonothary Aalto, Toronto, Ontario, March 18, 2009 IMM 2926-08. 2 2. In his decision to grant intervener status, Prothonotary Aalto stated that “CCPI and the other intervener LIFT (Low Income Families Together) would be raising arguments relating to sections 7 and 15 of the Charter as well as other arguments relating to patterns of discrimination and inequality, public policy concerns and competing demands on resources.” He found that “this is one of those unique cases that raise issues of public policy, access to justice and discrimination and inequality” such that the Court will benefit from the participation of CCPI and LIFT.2 3. CCPI seeks leave from this Honourable Court to intervene in the appeal to address these same issues as they arise in the Appeal from the Decision of Madam Justice Snider in the Federal Court (2009 FC 873). 3 B. Qualifications of CCPI 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Iacobucci Report Recommendations – TPS Responses
    Iacobucci Report Recommendations TPS Implementation Status/Theme Summary Recommendation # Theme Implementation Status 1 Mental Health System and Toronto Police TPS Concurs – Implemented 2 Mental Health System and Toronto Police (training) TPS Concurs – Implemented 3 Mental Health System and Toronto Police (procedure) TPS Concurs – Implemented. 4 Mental Health System and Toronto Police TPS Concurs – Implemented 5 Police Culture (policy) TPS Concurs – Implemented 6 Selection of Police Officers (recruit certification) TPS Concurs – Implemented 7 Selection of Police Officers (recruit attributes) TPS Concurs – Implemented 8 Selection of Police Officers (recruit attributes) TPS Concurs – Implemented 9 Selection of Police Officers (recruit attributes) TPS Concurs – Implemented 10 Selection of Police Officers (recruit attributes) TPS Concurs – Implemented 11 Selection of Police Officers (psychological assessments) TPS Concurs – Under consideration 12 Selection of Police Officers (psychological assessments) TPS Concurs – Under consideration 13 Selection of Police Officers (psychological assessments) TPS Concurs – Implemented 14 Selection of Police Officers (psychological assessments) TPS Concurs – Implemented 15 Training (recruits) TPS Concurs – Implemented 16 Training (recruits) TPS Concurs – Implemented 17 Training (recruits) TPS Concurs – Implemented 18 Training (in-service) TPS Concurs – Implemented 19 Training (in-service) TPS Concurs – Implemented 20 Training (in-service) TPS Concurs – Implemented 21 Training (decentralized) TPS Concurs
    [Show full text]
  • Special Series on the Federal Dimensions of Reforming the Supreme Court of Canada
    SPECIAL SERIES ON THE FEDERAL DIMENSIONS OF REFORMING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA The Supreme Court of Canada: A Chronology of Change Jonathan Aiello Institute of Intergovernmental Relations School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University SC Working Paper 2011 21 May 1869 Intent on there being a final court of appeal in Canada following the Bill for creation of a Supreme country’s inception in 1867, John A. Macdonald, along with Court is withdrawn statesmen Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Mackenzie and Edward Blake propose a bill to establish the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the bill is withdrawn due to staunch support for the existing system under which disappointed litigants could appeal the decisions of Canadian courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) sitting in London. 18 March 1870 A second attempt at establishing a final court of appeal is again Second bill for creation of a thwarted by traditionalists and Conservative members of Parliament Supreme Court is withdrawn from Quebec, although this time the bill passed first reading in the House. 8 April 1875 The third attempt is successful, thanks largely to the efforts of the Third bill for creation of a same leaders - John A. Macdonald, Télesphore Fournier, Alexander Supreme Court passes Mackenzie and Edward Blake. Governor General Sir O’Grady Haly gives the Supreme Court Act royal assent on September 17th. 30 September 1875 The Honourable William Johnstone Ritchie, Samuel Henry Strong, The first five puisne justices Jean-Thomas Taschereau, Télesphore Fournier, and William are appointed to the Court Alexander Henry are appointed puisne judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quintessential Trusted Advisor
    « THE VOICE OF MONTREAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING LAWYERS » Vol.1, No 4 $4 The quintessential trusted advisor Me Monique Mercier, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, TELUS Suzanne Côté appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada Cross-examination of plaintiffs lost-profits damages expert-Part 1 By Richard M.Wise of MNP Made in Court Supreme Court Decisions that shaped Canada By Richard W.Pound of Stikeman Elliott The Eternal Beauty of the Jewelry of Carl Fabergé By Olga Shevchenko, FGA — Certified Gemmologist The new covered terrace DISCOVER THE SINCLAIR WORLD DISCOVERY MENU | WINE PAIRING BUSINESS LUNCH | URBAN BRUNCH TAILORED CORPORATE EVENTS BANQUET HALL | WEDDINGS [email protected] | RESTAURANTSINCLAIR.COM 514 284.3332 | 414, RUE SAINT-SULPICE Monique Mercier, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, TELUS “General Counsel Emeritus of the Year 2014” “The quintessential trusted advisor” By André Gagnon onique Mercier, a corporate lawyer who prac- ticed at Stikeman Elliott in Montreal, with Mfiscal law stars such as Guy Masson and Mau- rice Régnier who introduced her to intricate tax and corporate matters, moved to become General Counsel of Bell Canada International and later on Executive Vice- President of Legal Services of Emergis and TELUS. According to Norm Steinberg, Global Vice Chair and Chair- man –Canada of Norton Rose Fulbright, who knows Mo- nique well (and from whom we borrowed the phrase) “She is the quintessential trusted advisor.” Norm praised her Report that may be consulted at http://about.telus.com/ legal talents at a recent recognition dinner held in her investors/ammialreport2013/files/pdf/en/ar.pdf honour at the Montreal University Club.
    [Show full text]
  • Carissima Mathen*
    C h o ic es a n d C o n t r o v e r sy : J udic ia l A ppointments in C a n a d a Carissima Mathen* P a r t I What do judges do? As an empirical matter, judges settle disputes. They act as a check on both the executive and legislative branches. They vindicate human rights and civil liberties. They arbitrate jurisdictional conflicts. They disagree. They bicker. They change their minds. In a normative sense, what judges “do” depends very much on one’s views of judging. If one thinks that judging is properly confined to the law’s “four comers”, then judges act as neutral, passive recipients of opinions and arguments about that law.1 They consider arguments, examine text, and render decisions that best honour the law that has been made. If judging also involves analysis of a society’s core (if implicit) political agreements—and the degree to which state laws or actions honour those agreements—then judges are critical players in the mechanisms through which such agreement is tested. In post-war Canada, the judiciary clearly has taken on the second role as well as the first. Year after year, judges are drawn into disputes over the very values of our society, a trend that shows no signs of abating.2 In view of judges’ continuing power, and the lack of political appetite to increase control over them (at least in Canada), it is natural that attention has turned to the process by which persons are nominated and ultimately appointed to the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of Canada and of the Supreme Court of Canada, Is Pleased to Welcome Mr
    SUPREME COURT OF CANADA PRESS RELEASE OTTAWA, January 8,1998 -- The Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of Canada and of the Supreme Court of Canada, is pleased to welcome Mr. Justice Ian Binnie to the Court. He stated: “I am very pleased that in the legacy of our late colleague, John Sopinka, another member of the Court has been selected directly from the legal profession. It is important that this Court always be aware of the realities of the practising Bar so that we do not lose sight of the practical effect of our judgments. I am sure that Mr. Justice Binnie, who is counsel of the highest standing in the profession, will make a very valuable and lasting contribution to this Court.” Chief Justice Lamer spoke to Mr. Justice Binnie this morning to congratulate him on his appointment. Mr. Justice Binnie has indicated that he will be available to commence his duties at the Court as of the 26th of January. However, he will not be sitting that week, nor during the two following weeks as the Court is in recess, in order that he may prepare for the Quebec Reference case which will proceed, as scheduled, during the week of February 16th. Mr. Justice Binnie’s swearing-in will take place on February 2, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. in the main courtroom. Ref.: Mr. James O’Reilly Executive Legal Officer (613) 996-9296 COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE OTTAWA, le 8 janvier 1998 -- Le très honorable Antonio Lamer, Juge en chef du Canada et de la Cour suprême du Canada, a le plaisir d’accueillir M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen
    Date: 20080417 Docket: T-866-95 Citation: 2008 FC 497 Vancouver, British Columbia, April 17, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and HELMUT OBERLANDER Respondent Docket: T-1505-01 A-294-03 BETWEEN: HELMUT OBERLANDER Applicant (Appellant) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/cfef0d/ Page: 2 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER Introduction [1] These reasons deal with motions for orders fixing costs brought by both parties in two distinct but closely related proceedings in this Court. The first of those proceedings was a reference made under section 18 of the Citizenship Act. Following the decision of Justice MacKay on that reference both parties made applications to him for costs orders which were by consent adjourned sine die pending the completion of revocation proceedings before the Governor in Council and the judicial review thereof. Justice MacKay having now retired, and no costs order having been made by him, each party now seeks an Order for its costs of the reference from me. [2] Mr. Oberlander also seeks certain extra-judicial costs allegedly incurred by him in the period following Justice MacKay's decision and culminating in the Governor in Council's decision to revoke his citizenship. [3] Finally, following the revocation decision by the Governor in Council, Mr. Oberlander brought judicial review proceedings which were dismissed by a judge of this Court but later allowed by the Federal Court of Appeal “with costs here and below” and I am now asked to fix the amount of such costs.
    [Show full text]