Roy W. Millen

Two First Nations (the Sister Nations) moved to adjourn the hearing of an application for judicial review of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' decision to discontinue fish farming operations.

The Sister Nations sought to wait for the outcome of their appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding their denied request to be added as parties.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for adjournment, finding that the Sister Nations failed to show they would suffer serious prejudice if the hearing proceeded, while a delay would cause significant prejudice to the applicants who faced a looming deadline to decommission their operations.

This is an appeal from a Prothonotary's decision dismissing a motion by two First Nations to be added as respondents, or alternatively as interveners, in four applications for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard regarding aquaculture licenses in the Discovery Islands.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Prothonotary's decision that the First Nations were not directly affected by the outcome of the judicial reviews and that they had not established how their participation would assist in determining the issues before the Court.

The applicants, operators of salmon aquaculture facilities in the Discovery Islands, sought interlocutory injunctions to suspend a decision by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard that prohibited the transfer of live fish to their sites.

The applicants argued the decision fettered the Minister's discretion under section 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations.

The Court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the decision unlawfully fettered the Minister's discretion.

The Court also found the applicants would suffer irreparable financial harm and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunctions to allow specific transfer applications to be processed.

The Court held that core search-and-seizure and record-keeping provisions in the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing scheme, as applied to lawyers and law firms, unjustifiably infringed Charter protections.

It confirmed sections 62, 63, 63.1 and 64 of the Act violated section 8 in this context, and that related regulatory obligations infringed section 7 when combined with inadequate privilege safeguards.

The appeal was allowed in part: findings against sections 5(i) and 5(j) were set aside, while the remaining constitutional relief largely stood.

The appellant sought to set aside a municipal taxation bylaw as unreasonable, arguing that tax burdens should track objective service-consumption factors.

The respondent municipality argued that reasonableness in bylaw review requires consideration of broader social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the community.

The Court held that substantive review of municipal bylaws is governed by reasonableness and is highly deferential in light of delegated legislative authority.

A bylaw is invalid only where no reasonable municipal body, informed by relevant contextual factors and statutory limits, could have enacted it.

The appeal was dismissed because the bylaw fell within a reasonable range of outcomes and was adopted through a proper process.