Essentials of Administrative Law – Mullan –Standing

Primary person affected should seek juicial review because they in a sense “own”
the wrong and are harmed more directly then anyone else –
Courts historically reluctant to grant standing to interest groups who may be
narrow minded and shouldnt usurp the issues that come up for their own private
interests – where those issues may affect a greater public whom they do not
represent (-Mullan) – but courts have been increasingly open to interest groups
taking part to challenge legislation that violates the Charter (for ex gay and
lesbian groups in Vriend v Alberta)

Public Interest Standing may be granted where:

1. there is a justiciable issue? - reflecting concern about the proper role of the
courts and their relp w/ other branches of govt
2. is there a serious issue being raised by s/o with a genuine interest in its
determination? - reflecting concern about allocation of scarce judicial
resources – screening out the busy body
3. is there another reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be
brought before a court? - reflecting the concern that courts should have the
benefits of the contending points of view by those most directly afected by
them.

greater resources may be a reason to allow another larger party to bring the
challenge on the affected persons behalf - Unishare Investments v The Queen
(corp that sold flowers to street vendors challenged by-law affecting street
vendors operations)

Intervenor status
− requires that the intervenor bring a perspective to the case that would not
otherwise be before the court
− should not change the focus of the litgation
−