Date: 20020611
Docket: A-721-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 246
CORAM: EVANS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR
Appellant
and
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
and MR. J. BHADURIA
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 11, 2002.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: EVANS J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
MALONE J.A.
Date: 20020611
Docket: A-721-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 246
CORAM: EVANS J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHAITANYA K. KALEVAR
Appellant
and
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
and MR. J. BHADURIA
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
EVANS J.A.
[1] On March 8, 2000, Chaitanya K. Kalevar made an application for judicial review to challenge a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated February 7, 2000, to dismiss his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Kalevar had complained to the Commission nearly three years earlier that the Liberal Party of Canada had discriminated against him on grounds of race and religion in connection with the nomination of a Liberal candidate in the 1997 elections. The Liberal Party of Canada is the respondent in this application.
[2] Following the issue of a notice of status review on April 24, 2001, Giles A.S.P. dismissed the application for judicial review for lack of prosecution. This decision is dated June 7, 2001. Mr. Kalevar filed a notice of appeal from this decision on July 18, 2001, more than four weeks after the expiry of the ten-day limitation period provided for such appeals by rule 51(1) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. In addition, he requested an extension of time for appealing.
[3] In an order dated November 15, 2001, Lemieux J. dismissed the appeal after hearing oral submissions from the parties: Kalevar v. Liberal Party of Canada, 2001 FCT 1261. In careful and thorough reasons, Lemieux J. reviewed the facts and the relevant legal principles, and concluded that Mr. Kalevar had provided no satisfactory reason for failing to appeal within the time prescribed in rule 51(1) and that an extension of time was not justified. Mr. Kalevar has appealed to this Court from the order of Lemieux J.
[4] There are before the Court two motions made in writing under rule 369 relating to that appeal. One is a motion dated May 2, 2002, in which Mr. Kalevar asks, among other things, that certain documents be included in the appeal book. The other motion, dated May 16, 2002, has been filed on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and asks that the appeal be dismissed. I shall deal with this latter motion first because, if successful, Mr. Kalevar's motion will be moot.
[5] The motion to dismiss the appeal is based principally on Mr. Kalevar's failure to comply with rule 343(1) which requires an appellant to file an appeal book agreement within thirty days of the notice of appeal or, in the absence of an agreement, to bring a motion within ten days from the expiry of that period to settle the content of the appeal book (rule 343(3)). The motion also alleges that Mr. Kalevar has failed to prepare an appeal book forthwith in accordance with rule 343(5), has provided no explanation for his delays, and continues to persist in disregarding time limitations established by the rules for the orderly, expeditious and efficient conduct of proceedings.
[6] Mr. Kalevar filed his appeal from the decision of Lemieux J. on December 17, 2001. An appeal book agreement should have been filed on or about January 21, 2002. It was not. Alternatively, a motion to settle its content should have been brought by January 31, 2001. It was not.
[7] Rather, Mr. Kalevar contacted counsel for the Liberal Party of Canada on March 10, 2002 proposing a list of documents for inclusion in the appeal book. Counsel responded on March 12, 2002, pointing out that two other documents should also be included. Mr. Kalevar replied on March 31, 2002, nearly three weeks later, with a revised list, including three additional documents relating to earlier interlocutory proceedings in the application for judicial review. Counsel for the Liberal Party of Canada objected to the inclusion of two of these documents, on the ground that they are not material to the appeal from Lemieux J.'s order.
[8] Mr. Kalevar's written submissions are not responsive to the principal ground of the motion to dismiss the appeal. They do not even mention, much less explain, his failure to comply with rule 343. Instead, Mr. Kalevar merely repeats his grievances against the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Liberal Party of Canada, and the solicitors acting for it in this proceeding.
[9] Courts are reluctant to dismiss a proceeding for a failure to comply with the rules of practice when the litigant clearly wishes to proceed, particularly when the litigant is self-represented. It is a serious matter to dismiss a proceeding before it has been heard on the merits. However, in my opinion, this is a case in which early dismissal of the appeal is entirely appropriate.
[10] First, Mr. Kalevar's conduct of his application for judicial review and interlocutory proceedings arising from it has been characterised by unjustified delays. The application itself was dismissed by Giles A.S.P. for failure to prosecute and the appeal from this decision was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed out of time. Against this background, there is a particular onus on Mr. Kalevar to explain why he did not comply with the time limits in rule 343. And, as I have indicated, this is not an issue that his submissions address.
[11] Second, Mr. Kalevar's motion to appeal and for an extension of time was heard orally by Lemieux J., who dismissed the appeal only after a full review of the matter and the surrounding circumstances, including his opinion that the appeal lacked any merit. Having examined the reasons of Lemieux J., and the materials submitted by the parties on the motions currently before the Court, I see no more merit in the present appeal than Lemieux J. saw in the appeal to him from the decision of Giles A.S.P. dismissing the application for judicial review.
[12] Third, the Court recognises and, where appropriate, is responsive to the difficulties facing litigants who are representing themselves in proceedings before the Court. Nonetheless, as Lemieux J. pointed out, the rules apply to all litigants. Those who persistently fail to comply with them do so at their peril.
[13] For these reasons, I would grant the motion of the Liberal Party of Canada with costs and dismiss the appeal.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
"I agree
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A."
"I agree
B. Malone J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-721-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Chaitanya K. Kalevar v. Liberal Party of Canada and Mr. J. Bhaduria
MOTIONS DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Evans J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Pelletier and Malone JJ.A.
DATED: June 11, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Chaitanya K. Kalevar APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Mr. John A. Campion FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Shelly M. Feld
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Chaitanya K. Kalevar APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Toronto, Ontario
Fasken, Martineau DuMoulin FOR THE RESPONDENT
Toronto, Ontario Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. J. Bhaduria RESPONDENT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Unionville, Ontario
Email this Content