Federal Appeal


Administrative Law

JUDICIAL REVIEW
No reason why proceedings could not be heard one after the other

JUDICIAL REVIEW

No reason why proceedings could not be heard one after the other

Appeal by appellants from decision of Federal Court confirming decision by prothonotary refusing to grant appellants’ motion for order that appellants’ judicial review applications be heard together or in the alternative that they be heard consecutively, with single book of authorities being filed. Appeal allowed. Decision was set aside. It was ordered that applications for judicial review be heard one after other before same judge at time and place to be fixed by judicial administrator, and single book of authorities being filed for both proceedings. Prothonotary erred in failing to address appellants’ alternative submission that proceedings be heard one after other before same judge. There was no reason why proceedings could not be heard one after other before same judge. No prejudice has been shown to result from separate but successive hearings.

Cargill Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (June 11, 2012, F.C.A., Noel, Dawson and Stratas JJ.A., File No. A-367-11) 216 A.C.W.S. (3d) 816 (7 pp.).

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


Some lawyers say the Law Society of Upper Canada needs to implement entity regulation to significantly boost diversity in the legal profession. Do you think that entity regulation is necessary to best achieve diversity initiatives?
RESULTS ❯