Date: 19980311
Docket: T-2055-97
BETWEEN:
VLADO MALJKOVICH
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
as representing D.J. THOMPSON,
Independent Chairman of the Warkworth Penitentiary Disciplinary Board
appointed under the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations,
and the Commissioner of Corrections,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
TEITELBAUM J.:
[1] On September 17, 1997, the applicant, representing himself, filed an originating notice of motion "for the purpose of obtaining a writ of certiorari, or relief in the nature thereof, quashing the respondent's "ENDORSEMENT" and referring the applicant's applications for the purposes of Directive 56 of the Commissioner's Directive 580 1997-01-24 back to the respondent, with a direction that he first hear the applicant's representations before making a decision for the purposes of said Directive 56."
[2] It is my understanding from reading the file, that both parties have produced application Records.
[3] On February 18, 1998, the applicant filed a notice of motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 324 of the Federal Court Rules, that is, for judgment on the originating notice of motion filed by the applicant on September 17, 1997.
[4] The respondent opposes the motion for judgment. The respondent, in her submissions states that there is no provision in the Federal Court Act or Rules which would allow the applicant to bring such a motion for judgment.
[5] Pursuant to Rule 1615 of the Federal Court Rules it is the Court that shall set the day, time and place for the hearing of an application for judicial review.
[6] I believe that in order for the Court to decide an application for judicial review pursuant to Rule 324, the party to the proceedings must make, in writing, a request for same. The opposing party may consent or oppose giving reasons why an oral hearing is required.
[7] In the present case, the applicant has failed to make a written request for a Rule 324 hearing.
[8] Therefore, the present application for judgment pursuant the Rule 324 is pre-mature and must be denied.
[9] The application for judgment is denied. The applicant should request a date for an oral hearing by telephone conference, or make a special request for a decision pursuant to Rule 324.
[10] With regard to the applicant being permitted to file a Supplementary Application Record, I must refuse to allow same as no formal request was made to the Court and no reasons have been given why a Supplementary Application Record is required.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO "Max M. Teitelbaum"
March 11, 1998. J.F.C.C.
Email this Content