Date: 19980420
Docket: 98-T-15
BETWEEN:
MICHEL DROUIN
Applicant
AND:
GUY LAFLAMME
Inspector, Arbitrator of Grievance
1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OR2
- and -
O. EMOND
Commanding Officer of Division "C"
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
4225 Dorchester West
Westmount, Quebec
H3Z 1V5
- and -
J.P.R. MURRAY
Commissioner
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, ONtario
K1A OR2
- and -
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Ministry of Justice
Justice Building, 239 Wellington
Ottawa, Ontario
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM J.:
[1] This is an application by the applicant, Michel Drouin, made pursuant to section 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act, wherein the applicant "requests an extension of time of 90 days beyond the 30 days following his receipt of the decision of Mr. Guy Laflamme as Arbitrator of Level Two Committee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police dated February 2, 1998, in order to submit an Originating Notice of Motion to the Court".
[2] The applicant lists nine grounds for his filing of the said application. Briefly summarized, the grounds are that he received the decision in issue on February 18, 1998, the decision is in the French language, the applicant asked for an English translation of the decision because he is being assisted by his wife who does not understand French and until an English translation is obtained, he is unable to file his judicial review application. In addition he states, as a ground for the application for extension of time, he made a request under the Access to Information Act "for certain precedents of grievances by R.C.M.P. members in similar circumstances as himself". He made the request by letter dated March 19, 1998, one day over the 30 day delay to file an application for judicial review.
[3] In the affidavit of the applicant filed with his application for extension of time, the applicant states:
| 3.1 I was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from 1986 to 1995, and my Regimental Number was S-2983; |
|
| 3.2 On February 18, 1998 I received the decision dated February 2, 1998 made by the Respondent Inspector Guy Laflamme, Arbitrator for a Level Two Internal grievance with the R.C.M.P. concerning a promotion I was denied as a member of the R.C.M.P.; |
|
| 3.3 I received the decision of the Respondent G. Laflamme in the French language, annexed hereto and marked as A-1; |
|
| 3.4 When I initiated my appeal to Level Two of the R.C.M.P.'s internal grievance process, I had confirmed with Mr. Abdou Nguer of the Administration Office Grievance Unit, C-Division of the R.C.M.P. that I was able to submit my appeal in English and there was no special procedure or form to make this request. On August 15, 1997 I submitted my "Grounds for Appeal to Level Two" in the English language, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as A-2; |
|
| 3.5 I am representing myself before this Court but I will have the assistance of my spouse, Mona Sidarous who is an anglophone lawyer and member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. For this reason I have chosen to proceed in this matter in English and require the decision of Respondent G. Laflamme in English. |
|
| 3.6 On March 2, 1998 Ms. Sidarous spoke to Ms. Irene Lamesse of the R.C.M.P. Personnel Grievance unit in Ottawa, on my behalf requesting the decision of Respondent G. Laflamme in English. She was told Ms. Lamesse would consult with Inspector Laflamme and get back to her. On March 13, 1998 Ms. Sidarous contacted Ms. Lamesse again since neither myself nor Ms. Sidarous had any response yet. Ms. Sidarous was informed that the decision would be translated in English upon my written request. I sent a formal written request to receive this decision in English via fax on March 16, 1998, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as A-3; |
|
| 3.7 I am also aware of some grievances made by R.C.M.P. members in similar circumstances to mine and I intend to rely on these decisions in submitting an Application for Judicial Review to this Court. I have made a formal request under the Access to Information Act to receive copies of the decisions in those cases. I made this request under the Access to Information Act by letter dated March 19, 1998 and sent by registered mail, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as A-4; |
|
| 3.8 I have acted diligently and in good faith in making this motion to the Court; |
|
| 3.9 Since I have no assurance or control over how long it will take before I receive the translation of the decision dated February 2, 1998 or the documents requested under the Access to Information Act, I am requesting an extension of 90 days from the termination of the 30 days following receipt of the decision dated February 2, 1998, in order to submit to this Court an Application for Judicial Review. If I do not receive this extension of time, I will effectively be denied an opportunity to make an Application for Judicial Review before this Court and I will suffer an extreme and unfair prejudice; |
|
| 3.10 If an extension of time is accorded by the Court, the Respondents would not suffer any prejudice. |
|
[4] Section 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act states:
| 18.1 (2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within thirty days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected thereby, or within such further time as a judge of the Trial Division may, either before or after the expiration of those thirty days, fix or allow.
|
(2) Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours qui suivent la première communication, par l'office fédéral, de sa décision ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu'un juge de la Section de première instance peut, avant ou après l'expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou accorder.
18.1(3)
|
[5] The applicant obviously is aware that he must file his application for judicial review within 30 days after the time the decision was first communicated to him, that is, February 18, 1998, or such further time as a judge may grant.
[6] It is trite law that an extension of time will only be granted when the applicant can show that he has an arguable case (see Luc LeBlanc v. National Bank of Canada [1994] 1 F.C. 81). The applicant must also show that the entire delay for the late filing must be accounted for, that is to say, the applicant must show why he was unable to file the application for judicial review within the legal time limits (see Michael Bookalam v. National Parole Board (unreported) February 16, 1996, F.C.T.D.).
[7] With regard to the issue of the applicant having an arguable case, I can find no evidence of same. Nowhere in the applicant's affidavit does he state where or how Inspector Guy Laflamme erred in his February 2, 1998 decision. This may be understandable if in fact the applicant would be unable to understand the decision of Inspector Laflamme. Nowhere in the applicant's affidavit does he say he does not understand the French decision, only that his wife does not understand. Surely, the applicant could have translated the decision for his wife so as to file, within the legal delays, an application for judicial review.
[8] In addition, I am satisfied that waiting to receive certain documents pursuant to an access to information request without saying how these documents will be of benefit to the applicant is not a reason to grant an extension of time. All that the applicant states with regard to this issue in his affidavit (paragraph 3.7) is that he is aware of some grievances made by R.C.M.P. members in similar circumstances as his own without stating how this is helpful in his particular case.
[9] There is always a difficulty when one represents oneself. Unfortunately, the Court cannot do otherwise than follow the jurisprudence when considering extensions of time even if an individual represents oneself.
10] The application for extension of time is denied.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 20, 1998
Email this Content