Date: 20030709
Docket: T-2079-01
Montréal, Quebec, July 9, 2003
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
BETWEEN:
CHANTAL-ANNICK TREMBLAY
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
Motion by the plaintiff for an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review.
ORDER
The motion is dismissed with costs.
Yvon Pinard
Judge
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 20030709
Docket: T-2079-01
Citation: 2003 FC 849
BETWEEN:
CHANTAL-ANNICK TREMBLAY
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
PINARDJ.
[1] This is a motion by the plaintiff for an extension of time under subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, "[TRANSLATION] to bring an application for judicial review of the decision by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff, which was made initially on July 7, 1999, and subsequently upheld."
[2] The requirements for obtaining such an extension were best stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263 (C.A.) (see also Bullock v. Canada, [1997] F.C.J. No. 1661 (QL) and Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly, [1999] F.C.J. No. 846 (QL)).
[3] After hearing counsel for the parties and reviewing the record, I am of the view that these requirements were not met, and I agree in substance with the written representations of the defendant/respondent, as stated in paragraphs 23 to 51 at tab 1 of the respondent's record in this motion by the plaintiff/moving party.
[4] I am also of the view that the long delay between service of the defence on the plaintiff in the main action in January 2002 and the filing of this motion in June 2003 remains completely unjustified, which would be sufficient, in the circumstances, to dismiss the motion. In fact, in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the defence, the defendant notes that the plaintiff has not brought an application for judicial review of either the decision at issue of July 7, 1999, or the decision that subsequently upheld it. In my view, by failing to request an extension of time to file an application for judicial review at the time the defence to the main action was served, the plaintiff quite simply chose to continue this action. Clearly, the only reason for bringing this motion 16 months later was because of an order made by the prothonotary on May 20, 2003, following a pre-trial conference in the action. Simply put, there is no reasonable explanation for this considerable delay.
[5] Accordingly, the motion is dismissed with costs.
Yvon Pinard
Judge
Montréal, Quebec
July 9, 2003
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2079-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
CHANTAL-ANNICK TREMBLAY
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: July 7, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: July 9, 2003
APPEARANCES:
|
Jacques Béland |
FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
|
Raymond Piché |
FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Béland, Lacoursière Montréal, Quebec |
FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
|
Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec |
FOR THE DEFENDANT |
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20030709
Docket: T-2079-01
Between:
CHANTAL-ANNICK TREMBLAY
Plaintiff
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER