Date: 20050228
Docket:04-A-63
Citation: 2005 FCA 78
Present: EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
SATISH KUMAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on February 28, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20050228
Docket: 04-A-63
Citation: 2005 FCA 78
Present: EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
SATISH KUMAR
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
EVANS J.A.
[1] Satish Kumar has requested a reconsideration of an order, dated January 25, 2005, in which I dismissed an appeal by Mr. Kumar from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, dated August 10, 2004. In that decision, the Tax Court had refused him an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Tax Court rendered on August 3, 1999.
[2] Orders of a Court are normally final, although they may be reversed on appeal. However, rule 397 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, authorises the Court to reconsider one of its orders in certain limited circumstances. The rule states:
| 397 (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that
(a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or
(b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
Mistakes
(2) Clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court.
|
|
397(1) Dans les 10 jours après qu'une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l'ordonnance, telle qu'elle était constituée à ce moment, d'en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l'une ou l'autre des raisons suivantes :
a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier;
b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement.
Erreurs
(2) Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour.
|
|
|
|
|
[3] In his written submissions in support of his motion for a reconsideration, Mr. Kumar did not attempt to demonstrate which provision of rule 397 was relevant to his motion. Instead, he sought to reargue the merits by asserting that the judgment of August 3, 1999, was not on the consent of the parties, even though this is what the judgment clearly states.
[4] Having read the submissions on behalf of the Crown opposing the motion to reconsider, and having considered the order of January 25, 2005, I am not persuaded that rule 397 provides any basis on which the order may be reconsidered.
[5] For these reasons, the motion is dismissed with costs.
____________________________
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 04-A-63
STYLE OF CAUSE: SATISH KUMAR V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: EVANS J.A.
DATED: February 28, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Satish Kumar
|
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
|
John W. Smithers
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Satish Kumar
Sydney, Nova Scotia
|
APPELLANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content