A-25-75
The Queen (Applicant)
v.
John Wesley Bolton (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Smith and Shep-
pard D.JJ.—Vancouver, October 6, 1975.
Judicial review—Expropriation—Application to set aside
decision refusing warrant of possession—Expropriation Act,
R.S.C. 1970 (1st Supp.), c. 16. s. 35.
No matter how widely one interprets the Court's power to
permit persons to be heard, it does not extend to permitting a
person to be heard merely because he has an interest in another
controversy where the same question of law will or may arise as
that which will or may arise in the controversy that is before
the Court.
JUDICIAL review.
COUNSEL:
N. D. Mullins, Q.C., for applicant.
W. C. Johnstone for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
W. C. Johnstone & Co., Richmond, B.C., for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for the judgment
of the Court delivered orally in English by
JACKETT C.J.: This is a section 28 application to
set aside a decision of Decary J. (apparently acting
as persona designata) refusing a warrant of
possession in respect of land expropriated from the
respondent. See section 35 of the Expropriation
Act.
What we have heard this morning are applica
tions on behalf of sixteen other persons from whom
other land has been expropriated to be heard on
the argument of this section 28 application.
While the Rules of this Court give this Court a
wide discretion to permit persons affected by, or
otherwise interested in, an order that is the subject
matter of a section 28 application, to be heard,
counsel has not made any submission this morning
that, in our view, can be construed as persuasive
that any of the applicants is affected by, or inter
ested in, an order refusing or granting a warrant of
possession against the respondent in respect of the
land expropriated from him.
In our view, no matter how widely one interprets
the Court's power to permit persons to be heard, it
does not extend to permitting a person to be heard
merely because he has an interest in another con
troversy where the same question of law will or
may arise as that which will or may arise in the
controversy that is before the Court.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.