Mahoney,
J.A.:—
This
file
has
been
referred
to
me
for
directions.
The
reasons
for
this
order
will
read
like
a
primer.
That
is
because
of
the
elementary
cause
of
the
problem:
the
failure
of
the
learned
trial
judge
to
observe
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
Court
Act,
R.S.C.
1985,
c.
F-7,
and
Rules
in
giving
and
recording
his
judgment
and
reasons
for
judgment.
The
trial
judge
rendered
his
decision
orally
from
the
bench
on
February
24,
1993.
He
also
gave
oral
reasons.
A
bill
from
a
court
reporter
on
file
indicates
that
the
oral
reasons
were
transcribed
and
transmitted
to
the
judge
before
March
29.
Notwithstanding
the
mandatory
requirement
of
section
51
of
the
Federal
Court
Act,
they
were
not
filed.
51.
Where
a
judge
gives
reasons
for
a
judgment
pronounced
by
him
or
pronounced
by
a
Court
of
which
he
is
a
member,
he
shall
file
a
copy
of
the
reasons
in
the
registry
of
the
Court.
On
March
5,
the
appellant
applied
for
reconsideration.
On
July
21,
the
trial
judge
filed
written
reasons
for
judgment
and
a
written
judgment
by
which
he
dismissed
the
appeal
with
costs
in
accordance
with
the
oral
reasons
for
judgment
given
from
the
bench
and
written
reasons
filed
herein
on
this
day".
On
August
4,
the
appellant
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
"against
the
judgment
of
the
trial
division
of
the
Federal
Court
of
Canada
delivered
on
February
24,1993
and
the
written
reasons
filed
on
July
21,1993".
As
to
the
delivery
of
judgment,
the
Rules
provide:
337(1)
The
Court
may
dispose
of
any
matter
that
has
been
the
subject
matter
of
a
hearing
(a)
by
delivering
judgment
from
the
bench
before
the
hearing
of
the
case
has
been
concluded,
or
(b)
after
reserving
judgment
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing,
by
depositing
the
necessary
document
in
the
registry,
in
the
manner
provided
by
paragraph
(2).
(2)
When
the
Court
has
reached
a
conclusion
as
to
the
judgment
to
be
pronounced,
it
shall,
in
addition
to
giving
reasons
for
judgment,
if
any,
(a)
by
a
separate
document
signed
by
the
presiding
judge,
pronounce
the
judgment;
or
(b)
at
the
end
of
the
reasons
therefor,
if
any
.
.
.
I
omit
the
further
provision
for
requiring
a
party
to
prepare
a
draft
judgment
after
reasons
have
been
filed.
The
appellant
is
correct
as
to
the
date
of
judgment.
It
was
rendered
February
24.
The
written
judgment
filed
July
21
is
a
redundant
nullity.
Judgment
was
not
reserved.
Judgment
was
delivered
from
the
bench
as
contemplated
by
Rule
337(1)(a).
Rule
337(2)
was
not
engaged.
The
Federal
Court
Act
provides:
27(1)
An
appeal
lies
to
the
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
from
any
(a)
final
judgment,
(b)
judgment
on
a
question
of
law
determined
before
trial,
(c)
interlocutory
judgment,
or
(d)
determination
on
a
reference
made
by
a
federal
board,
commission
or
other
tribunal
or
the
Attorney
General
of
Canada,
of
the
Trial
Division.
(2)
An
appeal
under
this
section
shall
be
brought
by
filing
a
notice
of
appeal
in
the
registry
of
the
Court
(a)
in
the
case
of
an
interlocutory
judgment,
within
ten
days,
and
(b)
in
any
other
case,
within
30
days,
in
the
calculation
of
which
July
and
August
shall
be
excluded,
after
the
pronouncement
of
the
judgment
or
determination
appealed
from
or
within
such
further
time
as
the
Trial
Division
or
the
Tax
Court
of
Canada,
as
the
case
may
be,
may,
either
before
or
after
the
expiration
of
those
10
or
30
days,
as
the
case
may
be,
fix
or
allow.
[Emphasis
added.]
The
Federal
Court
of
Appeal
has
no
substantive
jurisdiction
but
that
given
it
by
statute.
It
has
no
jurisdiction
to
entertain
appeals
from
the
Trial
Division
but
that
given
it
by
subsection
27(1).
It
has
no
jurisdiction
at
all
to
entertain
an
appeal
from
reasons
for
judgment.
The
judgment
in
issue
is
a
final
judgment.
It
was
rendered
February
24.
The
time
within
which
it
might
be
appealed
had
long
since
expired
when
the
notice
of
appeal
was
filed
August
4.
The
jurisdiction
to
extend
the
time
rests
with
the
Trial
Division.
Rather
than
make
the
usual
show
cause
order
with
a
view
to
quashing
the
appeal
because
it
is
out
of
time,
I
propose
to
stay
proceedings
herein
for
up
to
60
days
to
give
the
appellant
the
opportunity
to
seek
the
necessary
extension
of
time
in
the
Trial
Division
and
to
appeal
should
it
be
refused.
If
an
extension
is
granted,
the
filing
of
the
notice
of
appeal
and
its
content
can
be
regularized
by
a
nunc
pro
tunc
order
thus
saving
the
appellant
a
redundancy
of
time,
effort
and
expense.
Order
Proceedings
herein
are
stayed
for
60
days
from
the
date
of
this
order
or
until
an
extension
of
time
to
appeal
has
been
granted
by
the
Trial
Division,
whichever
first
occurs.
Email this Content