Date: 19981203
Docket: T-2408-96
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Applicant,
- and -
VLADIMIR KATRIUK,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
MULDOON, J.
[1] Kenneth M. Narvey, a resident of Montréal, is a self-styled "legal researcher" who is known to this Court as a public interest advocate, although he is not a member of the bar of any jurisdiction in Canada. He purports to represent not only himself, but also, "(pursuant to rule 114 ...)" the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Including Those of the Holocaust (the Coalition) an unincorporated association within the meaning of rule 2 of this Court.
[2] Rule 2 contains the following definition:
| "unincorporated association" means an organization of two or more persons, other than a partnership, that operates under a common name for a common purpose or undertaking. |
Rule 114 provides:
| 114.(1) Where two or more persons have the same interest in a proceeding, the proceeding may be brought by or against any one or more of them as representing some or all of them. |
| (2) At any time, the Court may, on motion, appoint a person to represent some or all of the parties in a proceeding referred to in subsection (1). |
| (3) Where under subsection (2) the Court appoints a person not named as a party to the proceeding, it shall make an order adding that person as a party. |
| (4) An order in a proceeding referred to in subsection (1) is binding on all represented parties, but shall not be enforced against them without leave of the Court. |
Rule 104.(1) provides:
| 104.(1) At any time, the Court may |
| (a) * * * |
| (b) order that a person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceeding may be effectually and completely determined be added as a party, but no person shall be added as a plaintiff or applicant without his or her consent, signified in writing or in such other manner as the court may order. |
Rule 109 provides:
| 109.(1) The Court may, on motion, grant leave to any person to intervene in a proceeding. |
| (2) Notice of a motion under subsection (1) shall |
| (a) set out the full name and address of the proposed intervener and of any solicitor acting for the proposed intervener; and |
| (b) describe how the proposed intervener wishes to participate in the proceeding and how that participation will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding. |
| (3) In granting a motion under subsection (1), the Court shall give directions regarding |
| (a) the service of documents; and |
| (b) the role of the intervener, including costs, rights of appeal and any other matters relating to the procedure to be followed by the intervener. |
Rules 119 and 120 provide:
| 119. Subject to rule 121, an individual may act in person or be represented by a solicitor in a proceeding. |
| 120. A corporation, partnership or unincorporated association shall be represented by a solicitor in all proceedings, unless the Court in special circumstances grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the case may be. |
[3] In light of the provisions of rules 119 and 120, the person representing a group of persons, under rule 114, must mean a barrister, solicitor, avocat or in a word, counsel. In light of the possibility of incurring costs in unsuccessful litigation, rule 104(1)(b) requires of the various congregations, each one's written consent to be added as a party, or intervener under rule 109. No one can be impleaded as an applicant or moving party and thereby be possibly rendered liable to pay costs, without his, her or their written consent. No such written consent was filed in Court in this instance. Mr. Narvey, not being licensed counsel may represent himself without any formality, but not the several congregations, with whose rabbis Mr. Narvey asserts an oral understanding. A resolution, or other binding written consent is needed against or in contemplation of the evil day when a congregation might have to pay costs or suffer property to be seized.
[4] These matters were brought to Mr. Narvey's attention at his hearing and he acknowledged that if costs were awarded he would bear them personally.
[5] Mr. Narvey - herein the mover - was present in Court while Mr. Justice Nadon of this Court was trying the issue, at the applicant's instance of whether Mr. Katriuk, the respondent, should have his citizenship revoked for allegedly having obtained it by means of falsehood or deceit. During the course of the hearing, Mr. Narvey believed that certain oral observations on Mr. Justice Nadon's part evinced that judge's bias in regard to the issue being tried. The mover cited four passages from the transcript of those proceedings.
[6] The mover, Mr. Narvey, thereupon sought leave of the Court, Nadon, J., to be accorded intervener status in order to stay the judge's rendering of judgment because of alleged apprehension of bias. Mr. Justice Nadon declined to accord the mover standing to intervene. Counsel for neither the applicant nor the respondent complained of any apprehended bias on Mr. Justice Nadon's part, and they maintained their lack of any complaint, or any apprehension of bias, at the hearing of the present proceedings.
[7] The mover, Mr. Narvey, has appealed against Mr. Justice Nadon's denial of standing: his appeal is currently awaiting a hearing before the Appeal Division of this Court. However, the mover fears that Mr. Justice Nadon will render judgment on the putative revocation case, before the mover's appeal can be heard and disposed of by the Appeal Division. So, he has brought the present motion to stay all proceedings in the case of Mr. Katriuk's citizenship. Because that case has been heard and argued in full, and Nadon, J. has only to render a decision, the true meaning of staying proceedings is to silence Mr. Justice Nadon. The mover thought at the hearing that the verb "muzzle" was too pejorative, but, in effect, that is exactly what he moves this Court to do: to stop Mr. Justice Nadon from rendering his decision pending disposition of Mr. Narvey's collateral appeal by the Appeal Division.
[8] This Court has no power to prevent a superior Court judge of even jurisdiction from rendering a decision. A superior Court judge can be prevented from making orders or decisions only by the majority of a group, committee or panel of other superior Court judges which Parliament (and the provincial legislatures) commonly call a court of appeal, or an appeal division of a more extensive Court. Furthermore, this Court habitually declines to stay proceedings, including even enforcement proceedings, pending an appeal.
[9] This Court therefore declines to purport to muzzle Mr. Justice Nadon - to prevent him temporarily from rendering judgment - in these circumstances, or at all. Mr. Narvey's motion for a stay is accordingly dismissed, with costs to be paid by him personally on a party-and-party basis to each of the applicant and to the respondent.
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
December 3, 1998