Date: 20050930
Docket: T-1959-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1343
BETWEEN:
SHAHROKH AHMADZADEGAN
Applicant
- and -
COMMISSIONER,
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HUGESSEN J.
[1] This is a motion brought in writing by the applicant pursuant to Rule 369. The underlying proceeding is an application for judicial review brought by the applicant and attacking the provision of allegedly incorrect material by the RCMP to the Correctional Service and the Parole Board. The relief sought is described as follows in the notice of motion:
A. An order rescinding the Prothonotary's order allowing the filing of Respondent's Affidavit as Confidential.
B. Disregarding the content of the Affidavit or Allows Applicant to view a vetted version of the Affidavit.
[2] The reference in paragraph A above is to an Order of Hargrave P. dated January 17, 2005. The effective part of that Order reads:
Taking the applicable law and certain statutory provisions into consideration, the Crown's affidavit, with exhibits, is to be filed with the Federal Court in a sealed envelope: it is not to be served. The filing is to take place by close of Registry on 31 January, 2005. In due course the hearing judge will examine the affidavit and exhibits, as he or she must, pursuant to Kelly v. Canada (1992) 53 F.T.R. 147. This present Order shall remain in effect until any further Order of the Court, either by way of appeal or by the hearing judge.
Costs in the cause.
[3] The present motion is not dated other than "July, 2005." The jurat on the supporting affidavit indicates a date of July 7, 2005. Manifestly, the motion is not brought within the time allowed by Rule 51 for an appeal of Hargrave P.'s Order. There is also an indication in the materials that the applicant made an earlier attempt to appeal that Order but that his motion was correctly refused for filing as out of time; if that indication is correct, the present motion is also an abuse of the Court's process.
[4] The motion is also an abuse of process in another respect. The only legal argument advanced by the applicant in support of his claim to be allowed to see the confidential affidavit is that, because he is unrepresented he is his own solicitor of record and thus should be granted access as of right by the terms of Rule 152. That is a wholly frivolous argument. The applicant is not his own solicitor of record; he is not a solicitor at all. The wording of Rule 152 together with the definitions in Rule 2 of "solicitor" and "solicitor of record" is obviously designed to meet a case just such as this and to prevent persons in the applicant's position from running roughshod over the provisions of a confidentiality order.
[5] The motion will be dismissed with costs.
ORDER
The motion is dismissed with costs.
"James K. Hugessen"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
September 30, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1959-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAHROKH AHMADZADEGAN v.
COMMISSIONER, ROYAL
CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
MOTION IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: HUGESSEN J.
DATED: September 29, 2005
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
SHAHROKH AHMADZADEGAN FOR APPLICANT
HELEN PARK FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content