Date: 19990526
Docket: A-311-99
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
| ROTHSTEIN J.A. |
BETWEEN:
IPSCO INC.
Applicant
- and -
SOLLAC, ACIERS D"USINOR AND
ACIERS FRANCOSTEEL CANADA INC.
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered Orally from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on May 25, 1999)
LINDEN J.A.
[1] The need for a decision in this case is urgent, because the issue is whether a particular counsel may appear in a hearing before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) to begin on June 1, 1999.
[2] The CITT decided on May 4, 1999 that the appearance of this particular counsel would create a reasonable apprehension of bias because he had recently, on January 8, 1999, left the employment of the Tribunal and had before that worked closely with all of the members of the panel and all the other members of the Tribunal during his six years as counsel to the Tribunal. They, therefore, disqualified him from participating in the hearing, although his Senior Counsel and his law firm were not so disqualified and were permitted to continue to represent their client.
[3] In Szczecka v. Canada (M.E.I.) Létourneau J.A. said:
| This is why unless there are special circumstances there should not be any appeal or immediate judicial review of an interlocutory judgment. Similarly, there will not be any basis for judicial review, especially immediate review, when at the end of the proceedings some other appropriate remedy exists. These rules have been applied in several court decisions specifically in order to avoid breaking up cases and the resulting delays and expenses which interfere with the sound administration of justice and ultimately bring it into disrepute: . . . In the case of judicial review under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, which is the case now before the court, the interpretation of that section by the court is even more strict. [citations omitted] |
[4] In our view, this matter is interlocutory in nature since its determination does not go to the merits of the issue in dispute before the CITT, and, therefore, there being no special circumstances, we do not think that we should intervene. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the ultimate decision of the CITT on the merits following the inquiry, there are remedies open to it, which may include an argument based on the issue raised here.
| [5] The application will be dismissed. |
"A.M. Linden" J.A.