Date: 200206003
Docket: T-1805-98
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 631
BETWEEN:
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER and
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO,
Plaintiffs
(Moving party)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Defendant
(Responding party)
REASONS FOR ORDER
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
[1] The plaintiffs, by motion pursuant to Rule 397(1) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106 and subsection 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seek reconsideration of this Court's Order dated May 1, 2002.
[2] There is no affidavit filed in support of the motion. However, the written and oral submissions of the plaintiffs advance a single ground in support of their request, that being that the Order dated May 1, 2002 was made in excess of jurisdiction.
[3] There are no grounds advanced as provided by Rule 397(1): that the Order is inconsistent with the reasons given or that a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or omitted. The only ground submitted is that the Order was made in excess of jurisdiction. Such an argument is appropriately advanced on appeal. Rule 397 does not provide a right of appeal: Oduro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 189 F.T.R. 161; Cedeno v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. 2117 (T.D.).
[4] Regarding the request that the Court reconsider its decision pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter, I seriously doubt that the plaintiffs can rely on subsection 24(1) to have the Court reconsider its decision. Even if this were possible, the plaintiffs' notice of motion contains no allegation of a Charter breach. As there is no affidavit filed in support of the motion, there exists no evidence in this respect.
[5] Subsection 24(1) provides:
| 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(emphasis added)
|
|
24. (1) Toute personne, victime de violation ou de négation des droits ou libertés qui lui sont garantis par la présente charte, peut s'adresser à un tribunal compétent pour obtenir la réparation que le tribunal estime convenable et juste eu égard aux circonstances.
|
| |
|
|
[6] A Charter violation is a condition precedent to the granting of relief under subsection 24(1): R. v. Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296.
[7] For the reasons herein, there is no basis for reconsideration of the Order dated May 1, 2002 and this Court is without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The motion is therefore dismissed.
« Carolyn A. Layden-Stevenson »
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 3, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1805-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker and Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro v. Her Majesty the Queen
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 3, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAYDEN-STEVENSON
DATED: June 3, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Reverend Walter A. Tucker
Reverend Michael J. BaldasaroOn their own behalf
Mr. Sean GaudetFor the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Reverend Walter A. Tucker
Reverend Michael J. Baldasaro
Hamilton, OntarioOn their own behalf
Mr.Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, OntarioFor the defendant
Email this Content