Date: 20130314
Docket: A-561-12
Citation: 2013 FCA 82
CORAM: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
GUILLAUME BOUTIN
Applicant
and
AIR CANADA
Respondent
Motion in writing disposed of without the
appearance of the parties.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on
March 14, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MAINVILLE
J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
Date: 20130314
Docket: A-561-12
Citation: 2013 FCA 82
CORAM: PELLETIER
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
BETWEEN:
GUILLAUME BOUTIN
Applicant
and
AIR CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MAINVILLE J.A.
[1]
This judgment
concerns a motion by the respondent, Air Canada, to dismiss the application for
judicial review filed by the applicant.
[2]
By decision No. 444-C-A-2012
dated November 20, 2012, the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) dismissed
the complaint filed by the applicant regarding a permanent travel ban issued against him by the respondent.
[3]
On December 20, 2012,
the applicant filed an application for judicial review of that decision under
subsection 28(1) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7,
mainly raising jurisdictional errors and errors of law on the Agency’s part.
[4]
Subsection 41(1)
of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10, provides
that an appeal lies from the Agency to the Federal Court of Appeal on a
question of law or a question of jurisdiction on leave to appeal being obtained
from that Court on application made within one month after the date of the
decision, order, rule or regulation being appealed from, or within any further
time that a judge of that Court under special circumstances allows.
[5]
Subsection 28(2) of
the Federal Courts Act provides that section 18.5 thereof applies,
with any modifications that the circumstances require, in respect of an
application for judicial review made to the Federal Court of Appeal under
subsection 28(1). Section 18.5 provides as follows:
|
18.5 Despite sections 18 and 18.1, if an Act of
Parliament expressly provides for an appeal to the Federal Court, the Federal
Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court,
the Tax Court of Canada, the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board from a
decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal made by
or in the course of proceedings before that board, commission or tribunal,
that decision or order is not, to the extent that it may be so appealed,
subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or
otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with that Act.
|
18.5 Par dérogation aux articles 18 et 18.1,
lorsqu’une loi fédérale prévoit expressément qu’il peut être interjeté appel,
devant la Cour fédérale, la Cour d’appel fédérale, la Cour suprême du Canada,
la Cour d’appel de la cour martiale, la Cour canadienne de l’impôt, le
gouverneur en conseil ou le Conseil du Trésor, d’une décision ou d’une
ordonnance d’un office fédéral, rendue à tout stade des procédures, cette
décision ou cette ordonnance ne peut, dans la mesure où elle est susceptible
d’un tel appel, faire l’objet de contrôle, de restriction, de prohibition,
d’évocation, d’annulation ni d’aucune autre intervention, sauf en conformité
avec cette loi.
|
[6]
In the circumstances
of this case, this Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear the
applicant’s application for judicial review: Montréal (City) v. Canadian
Pacific Railway, 2003 FCA 105.
[7]
To challenge the
impugned decision of the Agency, the applicant had to comply with
subsection 41(1) of the Canada Transportation Act and obtain from
this Court leave to appeal the decision.
[8]
Accordingly, this
Court does not have jurisdiction over the application for judicial review filed
by the applicant, and in accordance with paragraph 52(a) of the Federal
Courts Act, the proceedings in this application will therefore be quashed.
“Robert M. Mainville”
“I agree.
J.D.
Denis Pelletier J.A.”
“I agree.
Johanne
Trudel J.A.”
Certified true translation
Erich Klein
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-561-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: GUILLAUME
BOUTIN v.
AIR CANADA
MOTION IN WRITING DISPOSED
OF WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MAINVILLE
J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
DATED: March
14, 2013
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Jean El Masri
|
FOR THE
APPLICANT
|
|
Louise-Hélène
Sénécal
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
El Masri
avocat inc.
|
FOR THE
APPLICANT
|
|
Assistant
General Counsel, Law Branch
Air Canada
Centre
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content