Date: 20030207
Docket: A-616-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 70
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
RONALD R. MITCHAM
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
STRAYER J.A.
[1] The decision of the Pensions Appeal Board of which judicial review is sought was issued on April 3, 2002 and mailed to the applicant on April 5, 2002. Presumably he received it by about April 9, 2002 and therefore, by subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act he should have filed his application for judicial review by about May 9, 2002. Instead he did not file it until November 5, 2002.
[2] While it is unusual for the Court to extend the time for filing in such circumstances, it appears to me from the affidavit material that the applicant here was not well served by either the Board, nor by his Member of Parliament, nor by ministerial or departmental staff. When sending out the decision, the Board failed to inform him of the right to judicial review in this Court or of the time limit for making application. The Board did not inform him of the right to judicial review until October 7, 2002, some five months after that right had expired. Instead, the applicant requested the assistance of his M.P. who on May 8, 2002 wrote to the Minister of Human Resources, on whose behalf a lengthy reply was mailed on June 5, 2002. This reply, mostly a reiteration of general rules, said nothing about the right of seeking judicial review in the Federal Court nor of the time limits for doing so. Indeed in a further letter from the Department on August 21, 2002, the only further advice offered was to suggest that he ask the Board to reconsider its ruling. The M.P. apparently passed on this advice to the applicant who made such a request to the Board. Finally on October 7, 2002 the Board gave the obvious reply that its decision of April 3, 2002 was final and could only be reconsidered by the Federal Court on judicial review.
[3] The applicant's attempted resort to a member of Parliament to seek a change in the decision of an independent Board was of course misconceived. But those who were in a position to advise him of the court process and its time limits failed to do so. Instead he was allowed to believe that there might be a resolution of the problem through an M.P. or a Minister. He has at all times shown an intention to have the decision reviewed.
[4] In the circumstances he should be allowed to proceed with his application for judicial review.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: RONALD R. MITCHAM v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE STRAYER
SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING BY:
RONALD R. MITCHAM FOR THE APPELLANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ronald R. Mitcham
Victoria, British Columbia FOR THE APPELLANT
Anahita Ariya-far
Department of Justice
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT