Date: 20010321
Docket: 01-T-21
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 206
Ottawa, Ontario, this 21st day of March 2001
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
MÉTIS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN,
SHEILA D. GENAILLE, JOYCE GUS, AND DOREEN FLEURY
Applicants
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PELLETIER J.
[1] This is a second attempt by counsel for the Métis National Council of Women and the individual applicants to comply with the terms of my order of November 28, 2000 in which I gave them leave to file a Notice of Application seeking the same relief as was sought in the original action. The first attempt to comply was unsuccessful because the applicants sought to add defendants, including the Prime Minister of Canada, and to add a claim for damages which is incompatible with an application for judicial review. A fresh draft of a proposed Notice of Application is now before the Court.
[2] The respondent opposes the application for an extension of time for filing the Notice of Application on the basis that the programs which are the subject of the application for judicial review have all been discontinued and replaced by other programs. The application is therefore moot says the respondent. The applicants object to this issue being raised now when, in their view, the respondent conceded before me that the only issue was the form of proceeding. They take comfort from my comments to the effect that I was not impressed with mootness being raised in the respondent's submissions on the prior application for leave. The respondent has filed affidavit evidence to show that the issue of mootness has been on the table for a long time. Correspondence between the parties on this issue is increasingly testy.
[3] It is time to return to basics. The applicants claim to have a justiciable grievance upon which they wish the Court to rule. They got off on the wrong foot and were given the chance to make it right. There was some difficulty with making it right so they were given another opportunity. At this stage, my concern is to have these proceedings in a form consistent with the Federal Court Rules, 1998 so that some procedural orderliness can be maintained. There will be a time for dealing with the substance of the application.
[4] I note the respondent's request for an oral hearing on the ground of the complexity of the issues to be determined. At this point, all I am determining is whether the Notice of Application conforms to the terms of my order of November 28, 2000. Upon a review of the Notice of Application, I find that it does comply with my order and so I hereby grant an extension of time for the filing of the Notice of Application in the form attached to the affidavit of Vyvien Vella to a date which is 15 days from the date of this order.
[5] The Notice of Application shall proceed in the ordinary course. The parties should note the following:
- In accordance with my order of November 28, 2000, the Notice of Application shall be treated as having been filed on September 2, 1998. Nothing in these or prior reasons precludes the respondent raising mootness, as it applies to these facts assuming that filing date, as a grounds for challenging these proceedings.
- I have not decided on the regularity of the Notice of Application beyond holding that it seeks the relief sought in the original Statement of Claim. As noted in my order of November 28, 2000, the Notice of Application is subject to the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. F-7 and the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
- Consistent with the last observation, the parties are bound by the time limits set out in the Rules, except as modified on motion or by order of a case management judge.
- For purposes of the times within which certain steps are required to be taken, time will run from the date of filing of the Notice of Application.
[6] The parties may wish to consider whether they would benefit from the appointment of a case management judge.
ORDER
For the reasons set out above, the time for filing a Notice of Application in respect of the matters complained of in the proposed Notice of Application, which is Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Vyvien Vella, is extended to Thursday, April 5, 2001. Costs shall be costs in the cause.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: 01-T-21
STYLE OF CAUSE: Métis National Council of Women and others v. The Attorney General of Canada
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF Mr. Justice Pelletier DATED: March 21, 2001
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS:
Ms. Kathleen A. Lahey FOR APPLICANTS
Mr. Sean Gaudet , FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kathleen A. Lahey Law Office Kingston, Ontario
FOR APPLICANTS
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa," Ontario FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content