Date: 20030428
Docket: T-1209-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 530
Vancouver, British Columbia, Monday, the 28th day of April, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
FRANCOIS ALAIN MOUSSA
Applicant
and
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
and THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Respondents
UPON NOTICE OF MOTION by the applicant made pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, appealing an order of Prothonotoray Hargrave dated January 3, 2003.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an appeal by the applicant of the order of Prothonotary Hargrave dated January 3, 2003, denying the applicant leave to file a supplemental affidavit and adjudicating costs against him in the amount of $400.00 payable forthwith.
[2] In reviewing such a discretionary decision of a prothonotary, this Court will only intervene were there was a clear error in law in the sense that the decision was based on a wrong principle or a misapprehension of the facts, or its error deals with a matter vital to the final issues of the case (Canada v. Aqua Gem Investments [1993] 2 FC 425 (FCA)).
[3] At the hearing before me, the applicant acknowledged that the purpose of filing the supplemental affidavit in question is to have three letters dated August 2, 2002, November 26, 2002, and December 3, 2002, respectively, admitted as evidence in the within judicial review application of a 28 June 2002 decision by the Public Service Commission dismissing the applicant's complaint of racial discrimination and harassment. The applicant also acknowledged that these letters were not, and could not have been, before this tribunal at the time of its decision. As a result, the supplemental affidavit is not relevant to the within application for judicial review. The prothonotary in his decision correctly stated as a general principle that judicial review is to examine a decision of a tribunal in light of the evidence which was before the tribunal and that any other evidence is irrelevant in determining whether or not there might be grounds for review.
[4] In light of the above, this Court ought not exercise its own discretion de novo and the prothonotary's decision must stand in its entirety.
[5] Consequently, the motion is dismissed. Even though the costs adjudicated by the prothonotary remain payable forthwith, the costs of this motion will be in the cause.
(Sgd.) "Yvon Pinard"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1209-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Francois Alain Moussa v. The Public Service
Commission and The Immigration and Refugee Board
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: 28 April 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: 28 April 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Francois Alain Moussa
( on his own behalf ) FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Ken Manning
Department of Justice, Vancouver FOR RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Francois Alain Moussa
( on his own behalf ) FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENTS