Robert Drummond

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review of a passport refusal as moot, the applicant sought costs.

The Court awarded costs to the applicant in the fixed amount of $10,000.00 despite the respondent being the technically successful party.

The award reflected the public interest in resolving the legal issues and the Court's disapproval of the unreasonable delay by the Minister in deciding the underlying passport application, which caused the matter to become moot before it could be determined on its merits.

The applicants challenged the federal government's COVID-19 border measures for returning international air travellers, including the requirement to quarantine in a government-approved accommodation (GAA) or designated quarantine facility (DQF) while awaiting a Day 1 COVID-19 test result.

The applicants argued the measures violated their Charter rights, were ultra vires the Quarantine Act, and encroached on provincial jurisdiction.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding no Charter violations except for two specific instances involving one applicant whose section 9 and 10(b) rights were breached during her transfer to a DQF.

The Court held the measures were a reasonable exercise of delegated authority under the Quarantine Act and within the federal government's jurisdiction over quarantine.

In an application for judicial review of a decision denying a passport renewal on national security grounds, the respondent moved for an advance ruling to strike an expert affidavit filed by the applicant.

The expert provided evidence on the concept of martyrdom in Islam, profiles of radicalized individuals, and assessing the risk of returnees from terrorist-controlled areas.

The Federal Court granted the motion and struck the affidavit.

The Court held that judicial review is restricted to the evidentiary record before the original decision-maker, and the expert affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions for procedural fairness or general background information.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Parole Board decision revoking his day parole, while simultaneously pursuing a habeas corpus application in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

After the habeas corpus application was dismissed, the respondents moved to strike the judicial review application as an abuse of process.

A prothonotary struck the application.

The applicant appealed.

The Court found the prothonotary lacked jurisdiction under Rule 50(1)(f) because the motion related to the applicant's liberty.

Considering the motion afresh, the Court struck the application as an abuse of process because it attempted to relitigate issues already determined by the Alberta courts.