Delisle v. Canada, 2017 FC 284

Date: 20170316

Docket: T-1350-16

Citation: 2017 FC 284

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Québec City, Quebec, March 16, 2017

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy

ORDER AND REASONS

[1]               The applicant, Dominic Delisle, is appealing the decision of Prothonotary Morneau that was rendered on January 10. It involves a decision regarding the admissibility of documents served by the applicant and the applicant’s obligation to answer the questions on the interrogatories under Rules 99 et seq. of the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-16), and to provide documents. The motion was not challenged, as it is otherwise allowed to be done under Rule 369. Mr. Morneau allowed that motion.

[2]               The appeal of a prothonotary’s decision under Rule 51 is possible if an error of law was committed; the standard will then be the correctness standard. As for other questions, questions of fact or mixed fact and law, the standard is to allow the Court to intervene if the error is palpable and overriding, the same standard for any appeal in civil matters (Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215).

[3]               No allegations of that kind were even made in the case at hand. Rather, the applicant seems to say that he is willing to acquiesce to the Prothonotary’s order. That does not constitute an appeal that can be successful. No errors on the Prothonotary’s part are alleged. The appeal of Prothonotary Morneau’s decision is therefore dismissed, with costs.

[4]               Moreover, the respondent also made an incidental application for the action brought against her to be dismissed. She seems to rely on the Prothonotary’s order, which had reserved the right for the respondent to address the Court [TRANSLATION] “by written application in the event this order is not respected in whole or in part” to dismiss these proceedings. According to the Prothonotary’s order, an incidental application to appeal the Prothonotary’s decision is not the written application to the Court that is available to the respondent. It is rather an independent procedure that allows the opposing party to take note of the arguments and of the evidence, if necessary, as well as to respond to it in writing. No such thing could be done in the case at hand. I do not feel that the incidental application for appeal is appropriate. The mixing of styles is to be avoided.

[5]               I note that the Court invited the parties to discuss so that progress could be made in this case. The Court was advised that the brief discussions were inconclusive.

JUDGMENT

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT FINDS that

1.              The applicant’s motion to appeal Prothonotary Morneau’s decision on January 10, 2017, is dismissed;

2.              Costs are set at $250.00, in favour of the respondent, regardless of the outcome of the case.

“Yvan Roy”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: