Date: 20030110
Docket: A-506-02
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Isaac
BETWEEN:
HEMCHAND RAMLALL
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on January 10, 2003.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ISAAC J.A.
Date: 20030110
Docket: A-506-02
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Isaac
BETWEEN:
HEMCHAND RAMLALL
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] The appellant asks the Court to reconsider the order that was made on 15 November 2002 pursuant to Rule 343(3) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, respecting the contents of the appeal book.
[2] As I understand Rule 397(1), the Court, which made the order, may reconsider that order on the following grounds:
|
(a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or
(b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. |
a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier;
b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement. |
and pursuant to Rule 397(2), authority is give to the Court to correct clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in the order made.
[3] In his notice of appeal, the appellant appeals from the order of Campbell J. in the Trial Division. The order reads in part:
... as I find that Prothonotary Lafrenière is correct in his determination that this Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by the applicant, this motion is dismissed.
[4] In deciding on the contents of the appeal book I was guided by the fact that the proceedings leading to the order of Prothonotary Lafrenière was one in which the appellant was seeking an order from the Prothonotary compelling the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider its refusal to grant leave to appeal by the appellant from a judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal and for other relief relating to the order the Supreme Court of Canada.
[5] It seemed to me that the only issue in the appeal was whether Justice Campbell was right or wrong in deciding whether or not this Court had the jurisdiction to make the order which the appellant was seeking. That being the case, I made the order that I did, bearing in mind the provision of Rule 343(2) which reads:
|
343. (2) The parties shall include in an appeal book only such documents, exhibits and transcripts as are required to dispose of the issues on appeal |
343. (2) Les parties n'incluent dans le dossier d'appel que les documents, pièces et transcriptions nécessaires au règlement des questions en litige dans l'appel. |
[6] I was guided by the provision of Rule 343(2) because it seemed to me that the limitation placed on the parties in Rule 343(2) would apply with equal force to the Court which was required by it to determine the content of the appeal book. I gave no reasons for my order. In his request for reconsideration the appellant does not allege any facts which would require a reconsideration under Rule 397(1)(a) or Rule 397(2). What he appears to be alleging in his request is that I should reconsider the matter pursuant to Rule 397(1)(b). However, the matters which he wishes me to reconsider are the very ones which I had already decided would not be helpful to this Court in deciding the only issue that I apprehended in his appeal.
[7] Accordingly, I would dismiss his request for reconsideration but without costs, as the respondent has asked.
[8] I do not deal with the appellant's alternate request for leave to appeal from the order which I made on 15 November 2002 since the only matter referred to me was that of reconsideration of my earlier order.
"Julius A. Isaac"
J.A.