Sierra Club of Canada

The CANDU Court Case

Motion for the request of materials filed in April 1997 on behalf of the Sierra Club of Canada. Motion filed with the Federal Court of Canada in connection with the environmental assessment of CANDU agreements with China.


File No. T-85-97

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA,
APPLICANT

and
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE OF CANADA,
and
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CANADA,
and
THE MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF CANADA,
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

RESPONDENTS

Notice of Applicant's Motion for Directions and Orders
Requiring the Forwarding of Requested Material,
Foreclosing Further Objections to Forwarding Material, and
Extending Time for Filing Applicant's Application Record
 

I. The Motion

1. Take notice that Applicant Sierra Club of Canada ("the Applicant") will make a motion to the Court on Tuesday, April 15, 1997 and at 10:00 a.m. in Montreal.

II. Precise Relief Sought

2. The motion is for directions and orders:
 

a. Requiring the Respondents to forward without delay a certified copy to the Applicant and to the Registry of all of the material in their possession as is requested in the Applicant's Revised Request for Material including, without limiting the foregoing:

i. in accordance with paragraph 5(c)(viii) of the Revised Request for Material, the commercial contract between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ("AECL") and China National Nuclear Corporation ("CNNC") of November 12, 1996 as referred to in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit of Colin Russel;

ii. in accordance with paragraph 5(c)(x) of the Revised Request for Material, the final loan agreements between the Export Development Corporation ("EDC") and the State Development Bank of China as referred to in paragraph 14 of the Affidavit of John Mundy;

iii. all material related to the material referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above, as detailed in paragraphs 5(c)(viii) and 5(c)(x) of the Revised Request for Material; and

iv. in accordance with paragraph 5(e) of the Revised Request for Material, the full text of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits and not simply its Annex III as attached as Exhibit B to the Affidavit of Peter A. Cameron;

b. Excepting from the directions and orders set out in subparagraph 2(a) above, that part of the said material which was forwarded by the Respondents as of March 7, 1977, but requiring the Respondents to forward without delay a certified copy to the Applicant and to the Registry of the missing parts of the material so provided, i.e. Annex A and Annex B of the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy;

c. Foreclosing the Respondents from raising any further objections, including solicitor-client or other privileges and objections to disclosure on the basis of ss. 37, 38 or 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, or otherwise, beyond what is set out in counsel for the Respondents' letter to the Judicial Administrator of March 7, 1997; and

d. Extending the time for the filing of the Applicant's Application Record to the date which is 30 days following the later of the dates: on which all of the certified material requested in the Applicant's Revised Request for Material has been forwarded to the Applicant and the Registry pursuant to the directions and orders of the Court to be given on the present motion; or, on which the Applicant receives the transcripts of any cross-examination on affidavits which may be conducted by the Respondents and the Applicant.

III. Grounds

3. The grounds intended to be argued by the Applicant are as set out below.

A. Requirement to Forward Certified Material

4. The Applicant filed and served its Originating Notice of Motion and the supporting Affidavit and Exhibits on January 20, 1997.

(1) General Considerations

5. In accordance with Rule 1612(2) of the Federal Court Rules, the Applicant included a request for material with its Originating Notice of Motion.

6. On January 31, 1997, the Applicant filed and served its Revised Request for Material which corrected and replaced the request of January 20, 1997.

7. After certain discussions between counsel, the Respondents have provided, to the Registry on March 7, 1997, and to the Applicant on March 10, 1997, certified copies of only three (3) of the many documents which the Respondents are required to forward pursuant to Rules 1612 and 1613.

8. For the balance of the Revised Request for Material, with the exception of subparagraph 5(m) with respect to which there has been neither objection nor compliance, the Respondents have, by the letter of their counsel dated and provided to the Registry on

March 7, 1997 and received by the Applicant on March 10, 1997, objected to the forwarding of any other material whatsoever.

9. The Applicant is entitled to and the Respondents are obliged to forward, without delay, all of the material.

10. This is a case of far-reaching public importance. It involves vast sums of the public money of Canada from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and a major project with important environmental and other implications. It will require the Court to embark on one of its first in-depth considerations of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ("CEAA").

11. In this relatively complex context, in accordance with the Interpretation Act, s. 12, the compendious jurisdiction of the Court under the Federal Court Act, ss. 3, 18, 18.1, and Rule 2(2) of the Federal Court Rules, Rules 1612 and 1613 must be given a large and liberal reading. This will ensure that the right of the Applicant to the application of CEAA in accordance with the Rule of Law is vindicated, that the Applicant receives the material to which it is entitled to allow it to effectively exercise its right to judicial review, that the Court is fully seized of the whole matter in respect to which the present Application for Judicial Review is brought, and that, at the end of the day, the Court is capable of rendering an appropriate and effective judgment.

12. The present Application for Judicial Review is brought on the basis of the substantive right of the Applicant to apply for relief against the Respondents, which are federal boards, commissions or other tribunals, by way of remedies as statutorily reformed under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act.

13. The procedure for giving effect to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under ss. 3 and 18 of the Federal Court Act is an application for judicial review pursuant to s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act.

14. Applications for judicial review are not necessarily limited to a specified "decision" narrowly viewed. Rather, pursuant to s. 18.1 (1) of the Federal Court Act, such applications are with regard "to the matter in respect of which relief is sought" (our emphasis).

15. It is in this context that the perfectly normal requirement of Rule 1612(4) is that the material requested "be relevant to the application for judicial review" (our emphasis).

16. The Applicant's Application for Judicial Review is in respect of the matter of the refusal of the Respondent Ministers, who are providing financial assistance, to conduct an environmental assessment as required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, of the whole project which is the proposed construction, operation, eventual decommissioning and all other works, undertakings and physical activities in China, Canada and elsewhere in relation to and necessary to fulfil the purpose of the physical works which are two 700 megawatt "CANDU 6" nuclear reactors, all as more fully described in the Applicant's Originating Notice of Motion, including particularly paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 thereof.

17. A proper Application for Judicial Review in the circumstances must be, and is in this case, appropriately structured to bring before the Court the whole matter of the refusal to apply CEAA. It therefore reflects the nature of the requirement for environmental assessment under CEAA.

18. To succeed in attacking the refusal to apply CEAA, the Applicant must show that the following conditions for the application of CEAA set out in s. 5(1) thereof are all present:

the involvement of one or more "federal authorities" (as specially defined in s. 2 of CEAA);

a "project" (as specially defined in s. 2 of CEAA); and

a trigger for assessment under s. 5 of CEAA, in this case where a federal authority "makes or authorizes payments or provides a guarantee for a loan or any other form of financial assistance for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part" (our emphasis).

19. The Applicant's Originating Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit are aimed at meeting this burden. As required by Rule 1613, the Revised Request for Material is detailed and carefully prepared to target material which is relevant to the Application for Judicial Review and the elements necessary to engage the legal obligation to conduct an environmental assessment under CEAA.

20. On the basis of false premises as to the legal context and as to the matter in respect of which relief is sought, the Respondents would have the Court pre-judge this case and re-draw the Applicant's Application for Judicial Review to have it proceed on the basis of the Respondents' own narrow and partial view of the dispute and what is relevant thereto. The Respondents have no right to effectively truncate the Revised Request for Material by choosing to provide only the material they view as relevant.

21. The letter of objection of March 7, 1997 improperly makes reference to and misrepresents "without prejudice" exchanges between counsel, all in attempting to re-define the subject of the Application for Judicial Review, the relief sought and the grounds relied on therein. After those exchanges, the Respondents decided not to attempt to bring preliminary motions. (They had no right to bring such motions in any case on an Application for Judicial Review and in the circumstances of this case.)

22. On an Application for Judicial Review there is no exchange of pleadings and no demand for particulars which would circumscribe the Applicant's case. The Respondents elected not to bring any preliminary motions and cannot now proceed as if such motions were brought and succeeded.

23. The result is that the Applicant's Originating Notice of Motion, supporting Affidavit and Revised Request for Material are intact, speak for themselves and must be read as a whole in the proper legal context in order to determine what material is relevant under Rules 1612 and 1613.

24. For example, the Applicant's attack on the refusal to comply with the obligation to conduct environmental assessment necessarily involves demonstrating that, as contemplated in s. 5(1)(b) of CEAA, the Respondent Ministers have been or will be involved in providing payments, guarantees for a loan on "any other form of financial assistance" for the project.

25. It is apparently the Respondents' case that the only legally relevant involvement of the Respondent Ministers was their authorization under s. 23 of the Export Development Act. The Applicant does not agree.

26. The details of the nature and extent of the involvement of the Respondent Ministers and their financial assistance and the legal significance thereof, are at the heart of the lis in this Application for Judicial Review.

27. The volume of material involved is not a valid ground of objection to the production of relevant material.

28. It is Rule 1612(1) and 1612(4) which limit the extent of the Respondents' obligations under Rule 1613(1). The request must:

specify the particular material sought;
be limited to material in the possession of the federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
be limited to material which is relevant to the Application for Judicial Review.
29. The Revised Request for Material specifies in the greatest detail possible and with great particularity the material sought. Due compliance with this requirement does not give rise to a valid complaint that the Applicant seeks "too much" material.

30. The Revised Request for Material is explicitly limited to material in the possession of the Respondents (opening passage of paragraph 5 of the Revised Request for Material). It is no objection that material in the possession of the Respondents originated with some other person or body.

31. As set out above and as shown below with respect to specific paragraphs in the Revised Request for Material, all of the material requested is relevant to the Applicant's Application for Judicial Review and the Applicant is entitled to it under Rules 1612 and 1613.

(2) Specific Paragraphs of the Revised Request for Material

32. Keeping in view the foregoing general points, the Applicant responds as follows the specific objections of the Respondents as set out in counsel's letter of March 7, 1997.

33. As many of the specific objections of the Respondents are repetitive, Applicants' grounds as set out for each paragraph of the Revised Request for Material must be considered together and applied as appropriate to answer the various objections raised by the Respondents.

Paragraph 5(a)

34. Paragraph 5(a) goes to the heart of the relevant elements required by the very structure of CEAA to demonstrate that the obligation to conduct an environmental assessment was triggered.

35. Under subsections 5(1) (opening passage) and 11(1) of CEAA, it is the proposal to exercise powers, duties and functions (in this case providing any form of financial assistance) by a federal authority in respect of the project and the planning for the project which give rise to the obligation to conduct an environmental assessment.

36. Subparagraph 5(a)(iii) serves to supplement the requests in subparagraphs 5(a)(i) and 5(a)(ii). It is not in relation to sales and exports of CANDU reactors at large, but only such sales and exports as relate to the present Application for Judicial Review.
 

37. As to the second paragraph of the Respondents' objections with respect to paragraph 5(a), CEAA environmental assessment is triggered by the exercise of powers, duties and functions "in respect of a project" (CEAA, s. 5(1)). Therefore, subparagraph 5(a)(i) appropriately seeks material in respect of the project.

38. As to the last paragraph of the Respondents' objections with respect to subparagraph 5(a), that paragraph does quite properly refer to paragraph 18 of the Originating Notice of Motion.

39. The view of the Minister for International Trade and of the Minister of Finance (as set out in their letter which is Exhibit X to the Affidavit of Elizabeth E. May) with respect to the powers, duties and functions they exercised is not determinative of what is properly part of the Applicant's Revised Request for Material. Paragraph 5(1)(a) of CEAA broadly makes any form of financial assistance for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out, in whole or in part, a trigger for environmental assessment. Triggering is not limited to certain authorizations under certain subsections of the Export Development Act.

40. By its very nature environmental assessment under CEAA is a planning tool; it does not attach to a quasi-judicial decision which can be viewed in isolation. The obligation to conduct an environmental assessment may, as here, arise in the context of a complex series of dealings over time. The nature of those dealings is relevant.

41. In accord with Rule 1612(4), the exercise of those powers, duties and functions referred to in paragraph 5(a) simply form part of the facts relevant to this Application for Judicial Review regarding the refusal to apply CEAA environmental assessment; they are elements of the provision of triggering financial assistance. The material requested is relevant to the exact role played by the various Respondent Ministers and therefore to their legal obligations by virtue of subsections 5(1) and 11(1) of CEAA.

Paragraph 5(b)

42. As demanded by the structure of the obligation to conduct an environmental assessment under CEAA, paragraph 5(b) seeks material relating to the provision of any form of financial assistance for the project.

43. The details of the nature and structure of the financial assistance and of the relationships of the actors involved in this case are highly relevant.

44. As to the first paragraph of the Respondents' objections to paragraph 5(b), the certified documents provided by Peter A. Cameron and John Mundy are certainly relevant, but they do not exhaust the Respondents' obligations.

45. The objection based on the reference to the "project" in paragraph 5(b) is entirely ill-founded. By virtue of s. 5 of CEAA, there is only an obligation to conduct an environmental assessment to the extent there are present the essential elements: triggering powers, duties and functions (in this case financial assistance) by a federal authority "in respect of a project" (our emphasis).

Paragraph 5(c)

46. The material requested in paragraph 5(c) relates variously to the involvement of the Respondents as federal authorities, and to the contractual and financing arrangements for the project, including financial assistance, all of which is relevant.

47. The Respondents have certified and provided (less Annex A and Annex B) the Canada-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement of November 7, 1994 requested in subparagraph 5(c)(iii) of the Revised Request for Material.

48. As to the second paragraph of the Respondents' objections, all of the material sought is relevant to the existence and nature of any financial assistance for the purposes of paragraph 5(1)(b) of CEAA because the negotiations and agreements regarding sale and export involved matters of financing and financial terms and assistance.

49. The Respondents have been intimately involved in a course of dealings which made possible the financial and contractual arrangements to enable the project to be carried out in whole or in part. As seen, the obligation to conduct an environmental assessment under CEAA attaches to the planning for the carrying out of a project. Therefore, material relating to the course of dealings surrounding financial assistance which triggers environmental assessment of the project is all relevant.

50. Furthermore, the requested material is relevant to defining the project in respect of which the obligation to conduct a CEAA environmental assessment exists.

51. The position of the respondents is inconsistent as regards the material requested in paragraph 5(c). The Respondents cannot be heard at once to say that they have not seen or reviewed the material in question (Affidavit of John Mundy, filed, par. 4 and 8; Affidavit of Peter A. Cameron, filed, par. 4 and 8), that it is confidential (Affidavit of John Mundy, filed, par. 15), that it is irrelevant to the Application for Judicial Review, and that they will perhaps claim that it is privileged. If the Respondents do not have the possession of the material in question, they should so inform the Court and the Applicant and refrain from speculating with respect to its content and relevance. If they have possession of the material, it must be provided.

52. For greater certainty, in the carrying out of the requests in paragraph 5(c), the Respondents are required to provide the material referred to in subparagraphs 2(a))i), (ii) and (iii) above of the Precise Relief Sought.

Paragraph 5(d)

53. Paragraph 5(d) seeks material in the possession of the Respondents which relates to the respective roles of those involved, the nature of involvement of the Respondents and their Departments in the provision of the financial assistance, and the nature, structure and source of and accounting for the financial assistance, all relevant to the triggering of environmental assessment under s. 5(1)(b) of CEAA.

Paragraph 5(e) and 5(f)

54. The material requested in paragraphs 5(e) and 5(f) is relevant because the Record herein shows that the Respondents have relied on and claimed compliance with such requirements to demonstrate that the sale and export of CANDU nuclear reactors to China is a commercial transaction involving only two Crown corporations and not involving any form of financial assistance which triggered CEAA environmental assessment.

55. The Affidavit of Peter A. Cameron includes as Exhibit B thereto only Annex III of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits. Annex III is taken out of context and the whole of the said Arrangement is relevant and should be certified and provided by the Respondents as part of their compliance with paragraph 5(e).

Paragraph 5(g)

56. This material is referred to in the excerpt of the Auditor General's Report, 1992 which is part of Exhibit AA to the filed Affidavit of Elizabeth E. May.

57. The relevance of this material is the same as that set out above with respect to paragraph 5(d).

Paragraph 5(h)

58. This material is referred to in the excerpt of the Auditor General's Report, 1990, which is part of Exhibit AA to the filed Affidavit of Elizabeth E. May.

59. The relevance of this material is the same as that set out above with respect to paragraph 5(d).
Paragraph 5(i)

60. The relevance of this material is the same as that set out above with respect to paragraph 5(d).

Paragraph 5(j)

61. Material related to the description and design of the project and planning to carry it out is relevant to demonstrating that there is a "project" as defined in s. 2 of CEAA, and to determining the object and timing of the required environmental assessment pursuant to ss. 5(1) and 11(1) of CEAA.

Paragraph 5(k) and 5(l)

62. The material requested in paragraphs 5(k) and 5(l) is relevant to this Application for Judicial Review because the Record herein shows that the Respondents rely on environmental assessments or studies already performed or to be performed in relation to the project as part of the justification or context for the non-application of CEAA environmental assessment.

63. The performance of previous or other environmental studies and the existence of regimes of environmental impact assessment in other jurisdictions (alleged "duplication") has frequently been (unsuccessfully) invoked by Respondents in litigation as relevant to the interpretation of legal obligations to carry out federal environmental assessment in Canada and as a discretionary factor going to the availability of remedies. In such circumstances, this and other courts have examined the reality and nature of the studies or assessments otherwise performed. Therefore, this material is relevant to this Application for Judicial Review.

64. If this material does not exist or is not in the possession of the Respondents, they should simply say so.

65. Vague allegations of privilege cannot override the clear obligations of Rule 1613. If this material is protected by some privilege, the Respondents can only not forward the material if they have informed the Applicant and the Registry in writing of the reasons for the objection and the objection has been favourably decided.

66. As to the Respondents' objections with respect to paragraph 5(l)(ii), that paragraph is relevant because the non-application of CEAA is the very heart of the matter before the Court in this Application for Judicial Review. Material regarding the result reached by the Respondents will inform the Court in hearing the case and in fashioning an appropriate remedy in all of the circumstances.

Paragraph 5(m)

67. No objection has been made to paragraph 5(m) of the Revised Request to Material. Like the rest of the material requested, it should be certified and provided "without delay" pursuant to Rule 1613(1).

B. Missing Parts of Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

68. Under Rule 1613 the Respondents are required to certify and forward complete copies of relevant material.

69. As set out in subparagraph 2(b) above of the Precise Relief Sought, the Canada-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement of November 7, 1994 certified and forwarded in part pursuant to subparagraph 5(c)(iii) of the Revised Request for Material should be provided in its entirety.

70. The missing parts deal, inter alia, with the type of nuclear material, material, equipment and technology which may be supplied by Canada to China pursuant to Articles II, III(1)(c) and IV of the Agreement.

71. The Affidavit of Colin Russell filed demonstrates that the missing parts are relevant to this Application for Judicial Review as regards the involvement of federal authorities in the exercise of powers, duties and functions which enable the project to be carried out in whole or in part. In paragraph 4 of his Affidavit, Mr. Russel swears in part that:

The signing of the Agreement opened the way for trade in nuclear material and equipment to help China meet its growing requirements for sources of energy. Without such an agreement, Canadian enterprises could not sell nuclear technology of proliferation significance to China.

C. Further Objections Foreclosed

72. Pursuant to s. 18.4(1) of the Federal Court Act, this Application is to be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way. That direction by Parliament must govern the application of Rules 1612 and 1613 and the making of any objection based on solicitor-client privilege or under ss. 37-39 of the Canada Evidence Act which may be invoked by the Respondents.

73. In accordance with s. 46 of the Federal Court Act and Rule 2(2) of the Federal Court Rules, the procedure set out in Rule 1613 must be applied in order to ensure that objections to the forwarding of material are dealt without delay so that an environmental assessment as required under CEAA may be ordered by the Court.

74. The Respondents were obliged to make all of their objections with reasons in writing without delay.

75. The power of the Court to give directions under Rule 1613(3) is limited to "the procedure for making submissions with respect to the objection" (our emphasis). It is Rule 1613(2) which governs the making of those objections.

76. Allowing the Respondents to split their objections would allow them to affirm the irrelevance of material they and their counsel have apparently not even reviewed and to rely on vague and unspecified possible eventual claims of privilege.

77. Unless the Respondents are foreclosed from making further objections, there will have to be a second motion on the issue of the Applicant's Revised Request for Material. This will prevent this Application for Judicial Review from being heard and determined without delay and in a summary way. It will also prejudice the Applicant's right to have the merits of this case heard without delay and put the Applicant to the expense of a second preliminary motion before the Court dealing with essentially the same issues as the present motion.

D. Extension of Time for Filing Application Record

78. The Applicant of course acknowledges s. 18.4 of the Federal Court Act and wishes its Application for Judicial Review to proceed quickly to the merits.

79. Under Rule 1606 the Applicant's Application Record fell due to be filed and served on March 21, 1997.

80. Pursuant to Rules 2(2), 3(1), 1614 and 1619, the Applicant seeks an extension of the time for the filing of its Application Record as set out in detail in paragraph 2(d) above of the Precise Relief Sought.

81. The Respondents have consented to extension of the time for filing of the Applicant's Application Record.

82. The extension of time is required because, after discussions between counsel regarding preliminary matters, the Respondents' Affidavits, limited material pursuant to Rule 1613(1) and objections pursuant to Rule 1613(2) were only received by counsel for the Applicant on March 10, 1997.
83. That date was 19 days subsequent to the date on which the Respondents' Affidavits were due under Rule 1603(3).

84. The Respondents' Affidavits were formally filed on March 25, 1997, pursuant to the Order of that date by the Honourable Mr. Justice Teitelbaum.

85. In this context, the extension of time is further required to allow the effective accomplishment of a number of steps which must precede the Applicant's Application Record.

86. These steps include:

(a) review and consideration of the Respondent's affidavits and the possibility of cross-examination thereon;

(b) review and consideration of the Respondents' objections to the Revised Request for Material and bringing the present Motion;

(c) review and consideration of any material the Respondents are required to forward by order of the Court herein;

(d) conduct of any cross-examinations of the Applicant's or the Respondents' affiants and reception, review and consideration of the transcripts of such cross-examinations; and

(e) preparation of the Applicant's memorandum of points to be argued and Application Record.

IV. Documentary Evidence Relied On

87. The following documentary evidence will be relied on:

(a) The Record, proceedings and correspondence to date herein, including:

(i) The Applicant's Originating Notice of Motion of January 20, 1997;

(ii) The Affidavit of Elizabeth E. May of January 20, 1997 and Exhibits thereto;

(iii) The Applicant's Revised Request for Material of January 30, 1997;

(iv) Counsel for the Applicant's letter to the Administrator of February 3, 1997 correcting clerical errors in the Originating Notice of Motion;

(v) The Respondents Notice of Motion in writing dated February 14, 1997 to extend time for the filing of affidavits and the accompanying letter of written submissions of counsel for the Respondents;

(vi) The Applicant's Consent to Extension of Time for Filing Respondents' Affidavits of March 4, 1997 and the accompanying written submissions of counsel for the Applicant;

(vii) Counsel for the Respondents' letter of objections to the Administrator of March 7, 1997;

(viii) The Affidavits of Colin Russel (March 6, 1997), John Mundy (March 7, 1997), and Peter A. Cameron (March 7, 1997) and the Exhibits thereto;

(ix) The Certificate of Colin Russel of March 7, 1997, providing the Canada-China Nuclear Cooperation Agreement of November 7, 1994;

(x) The Certificate of John Mundy of March 7, 1997, providing the Memorandum of Authorization of the Respondent Minister for International Trade of November 8, 1996;

(xi) The Certificate of Peter A. Cameron of March 7, 1997, providing the Memorandum of Authorization of the Respondent Minister of Finance of November 8, 1996; and

(xii) The Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Teitelbaum of March 25, 1997 granting the Respondents a delay until April 4, 1997 to file affidavits;

(xiii) The Respondents' Consent to the extension of time for the filing of the Applicant's Application Record.

(b) Such further and other material as counsel may advise and the Court may permit.
 

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Dated at Montreal, this 2nd day of April, 1997

Me Franklin S. Gertler
HUTCHINS, SOROKA & DIONNE
Attorneys for the Applicant Sierra Club of Canada...


Sierra Club of Canada