Date: 19980616
Docket: T-2408-96
IN THE MATTER OF revocation of citizenship pursuant to sections 10 and 18 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended and section 19 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.33, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a request for reference to the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a reference to the Court pursuant to Rule 920 of the Federal Court Rules.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to intervene in proceedings on a motion for a stay of proceedings
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
1� This is an application for leave to intervene brought by Mr. Kenneth Narvey (the "applicant"). The applicant seeks leave to intervene in the hearing of a motion to stay the main proceedings. The issue in the main proceedings is whether Mr. Katriuk, the Respondent, entered Canada and obtained citizenship under false pretenses. Leave to intervene was denied to the applicant for the following reasons.
2� In order to establish a basis for intervention, Mr. Narvey was required to demonstrate to the court that he had an interest in the proceedings and that he had sufficient knowledge or expertise such that he would be able to assist the court in its determination of the issues in the motion to stay the proceedings. (See generally, Federal Republic of Germany v. Rauca, [1983] 1 F.C. 525) Mr. Narvey is the legal researcher and Chief Operating Officer of the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Including Those of the Holocaust, an unincorporated association (the "Coalition"). Mr. Narvey sought leave to intervene on his own behalf and/or on behalf of the Coalition. In his written submissions to the Court, the applicant states that the mandate of the Coalition is to ensure that proceedings are conducted, in fairness, against persons alleged to have participated in war crimes, and to that end to conduct legal and factual research into the issues. The applicant, both on his own behalf and on behalf of the Coalition, has been granted leave to intervene in several other cases where issues of crimes against humanity have arisen.
3� There is no question that the applicant, in both his personal and representative capacity, has an interest in issues of war crimes. To the extent that granting or denying a stay of proceedings will have an effect on what happens to Mr. Katriuk, who is alleged to have participated in war crimes, the applicant has some interest. However, I am not convinced that this interest, removed to a degree, is sufficient to allow the applicant to intervene in the motion for a stay. The basis of the application to intervene is found in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the applicant`s Notice of Motion which read:
21. ...Mr. Narvey...did some rapid research ...and came to a number of conclusions as to the arguments contained in the said factum of counsel for Mr. Katriuk.
22. On Monday, June 8, 1998, Mr. Narvey shared some of those conclusions, by fax and telephone, with counsel for the Minister, Mr. Lucas, and told him:
(a) that he proposed to make the present application for leave to intervene on the motion for a stay of proceedings;
(b) that, if he received, in good time, any written representations that Mr. Lucas proposed to make on the motion for a stay of proceedings, he would delete from his own and the Coalition`s proposed written submissions any of the arguments and authorities that he had mentioned to Mr. Lucas and that Mr. Lucas would have adopted as his own; and
(c) that he would undertake to the Court, as is usual with interveners, not to repeat orally to the Court any submission that was made orally by anyone else before the Court.
23. Mr. Narvey has studied the above-mentioned materials to the best of his ability, together with what have appeared to him to be relevant associated materials, and has produced the following proposed interveners` or proposed intervener`s proposed written submissions on the motion for a stay of proceedings, for himself and/or for himself and all other persons associated with the Coalition adn/or for the Coalition as such, with a view to attempting to be of assistance to the Court, if the Court permits.
4� I have carefully reviewed the Applicant's submissions, both written and oral, as well as the authorities submitted to me. The thrust of the applicant`s submissions is that the applicant has a different theory of the case and a different interpretation of the jurisprudence from that of counsel for the Crown, Mr. Lucas. The applicant believes that his is the proper interpretation. To allow the intervention on this basis would disrupt the process in the application for a stay of the proceedings to an unjustified extent.
5� This is not to say that, had the applicant applied to the court at the beginnning of these proceedings in order to adduce further evidence with respect, for example, to the conduct of Batttalion 118 during the war, the motion for intervenor status would have been denied. The applicant has apparent expertise in historical research and is very knowledgable in the area of war crimes and history. I have no doubt that the applicant has a legitimate interest in the way the Canadian government treats alleged war criminals. However, the motion for a stay of proceedings is an entirely legal and procedural issue and not specifically related to any allegations of war crimes. The applicants states that he can assist the court due to his abilities, experience and special knowledge as a legal researcher. I have no doubt that his skills and persistance at legal research are excellent. However, all lawyers are skilled in legal research and it is encumbent on them to put before the court all of the relevant jurisprudence. The role of counsel is then to use such jurisprudence in submissions and argument to buttress their respective positions. Finally, it is up to the court to interpret and apply the jurisprudence in the manner which it deems appropriate. Thus, the mere fact that the applicant would point out different passages from any particular case and re-interpret that case on the basis of his own point of view does not justify allowing the applicant intervenor status. If this were sufficient, intervenors would be found in virtually every case where any person disagreed with the theory of the case formed by counsel or disagreed with a particular strategy which counsel had adopted.
6� In summary, although the applicant takes a different view of the case from counsel for both sides, the applicant does not possess expertise which is relevant to the points he wishes to bring to the Court. The applicant would simply like to argue as if he were a third side to the debate, which is not within the scope of the role of an intervenor.
Marc Nadon
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF TRIAL
Date: 19980616
Docket: A-2408-96
IN THE MATTER OF revocation of citizenship pursuant to sections 10 and 18 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended and section 19 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.33, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a request for reference to the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a reference to the Court pursuant to Rule 920 of the Federal Court Rules.
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to intervene in proceedings on a motion for a stay of proceedings
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO: T-2408-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
AND
VLADIMIR KATRIUK
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 15th and 16th, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Nadon
DATED: June 16th, 1998
APPEARANCE:
Mr. David Lucas
Ms. Martine Valois for the Applicant
Mr. Orest H.T. Rudzik
Mr. Nestor Woychyshyn for the Respondent
Mr. Kenneth M. Narvey for proposed Intervenors
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada for the Applicant
Mr. Orest H.T. Rudzik
Mr. Nestor Woychyshyn
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario for the Respondent
Mr. Kenneth M. Narvey
Montreal, Quebec for the proposed Intervenors