Canadian Inspection Ltd. v. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
CANADIAN INSPECTION LTD
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Donald Lucic

CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION
Law Firm / Organization
Attorney General of Canada
Lawyer(s)

Alexander Brooker

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Law Firm / Organization
Attorney General of Canada
Lawyer(s)

Alexander Brooker

  • Background: Canadian Inspection Ltd. (CIL) is a non-destructive testing company engaged in radiographic testing services. CIL holds a license issued by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The license allows CIL to possess, transfer, use, and store nuclear substances and conduct licensed activities.

  • Legal Issues: CIL initiated a judicial review concerning disputes over the calculation of license fees charged by CNSC. CIL sought three main orders: permission for its CEO, Donald Lucic, to represent CIL in judicial review; an order for CNSC to produce certain documents; and an injunction to maintain the validity of its license pending the review's outcome.

  • Court's Decisions:

    • Representation: The court granted permission for Mr. Lucic to represent CIL in this specific judicial review under Rule 120, considering he had previously represented CIL in a similar context.
    • Document Production: The court dismissed the motion for CNSC to produce additional documents, as the requested materials were not deemed necessary for the judicial review.
    • Injunction: The court also dismissed the request for an injunction to extend the validity of CIL’s license, which was set to expire. The court noted that CNSC’s decision-making process regarding the license renewal was ongoing, and the injunction sought would effectively predetermine that outcome.
  • Outcome: The court allowed CIL to proceed with some legal representations but denied motions related to document production and maintaining the license validity. The judicial review was set to continue to address the substantive disputes over license fee calculations. No specific costs were awarded

Federal Court
T-89-24
Administrative law
Respondent