Date: 20001024
Docket: A-577-99
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MCDONALD J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
OXFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
represented by Public Works and Government Services Canada
Defendant
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Heard at Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario
on Tuesday, October 24, 2000
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. |
Date: 20001024
Docket: A-577-99
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MCDONALD J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
OXFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
represented by Public Works and Government Services Canada
Defendant
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Tuesday, October 24, 2000)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] We have not been persuaded that Mr. Justice Evans erred in his discretionary
decision dismissing this action for delay. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: OXFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING |
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT
OF CANADA
represented by Public Works and
Government Services Canada
Defendant
(Respondent)
| DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. |
| DATED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24 , 2000 |
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Mir Celik
On their own behalf
Ms. Coleen L. Mitchell
For the Defendant (Respondent)
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Mir Celik |
Oxford Building Maintenance Engineering
21902 Wonderland Road North
ARVA, Ontario
| For the Plaintiff (Appellant) |
Morris Rosenberg
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| For the Defendant (Respondent) |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20001024
Docket: A-577-99
BETWEEN:
OXFORD BUILDING MAINTENANCE
ENGINEERING
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN
RIGHT OF CANADA
represented by Public Works and
Government Services Canada
Defendant
(Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Email this Content