Date: 20000929
Docket: T-1031-00
Between:
MICHEL LAVOIE
Plaintiff
- and -
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] In this application for judicial review made on June 12, 2000 the plaintiff is asking the Court to quash a decision by a director of the Federal Training Centre on May 12, 2000 to transfer him from that minimum security institution to the La Macaza institution, a medium security institution.
[2] Before the decision to transfer him was made a disciplinary complaint was made against the plaintiff. The hearing of this complaint took place on May 10, 2000, but the verdict was not rendered until May 24, 2000, in the absence of the plaintiff as he had at that time been transferred. He claimed that he was not told of this decision until June 21, 2000.
[3] By the instant motion made on August 18, 2000 the plaintiff relied on Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 and asked the Court to authorize [TRANSLATION] "that his application for judicial review deal with two orders instead of one".
[4] Clearly, if the plaintiff's motion was allowed it would short-circuit s. 18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act, by which an application for judicial review must be made within 30 days after the time the decision was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the party directly affected, or within such further time as a judge of this Court may allow.
[5] In the case at bar the defendant's evidence, supported by an affidavit from a preventive security officer, indicated that the plaintiff was represented by counsel when the verdict was rendered on May 24, 2000, and the latter undertook to meet with [TRANSLATION] ". . . the inmate Lavoie and [give him] the documentation pertaining to the decision of the independent chair". I therefore consider that the plaintiff's motion, in so far as it seeks leave of the Court to bring an application for judicial review beyond the deadline, is not admissible as the plaintiff has not established reasons for his delay in making this application (Independent Contractors & Business Assn. v. Canada (Min. of Labour) (1998), 225 N.R. 19, 39 C.L.R. (2d) 121, 6 Admin.L.R. (3d) 92 (Fed. C.A.).
[6] Additionally, it would not be proper in the case at bar to allow what is being sought by the plaintiff, namely to make two decisions by different federal boards the subject of a single application for judicial review. It goes without saying that the evidence and legal arguments which may be presented in opposition to a decision to transfer an inmate to another institution and those opposing a disciplinary complaint have no obvious connection, quite apart from the fact that they would involve the Court in the analysis of very different questions of fact and law and conclusions which have nothing in common simply because of the different nature of the decisions.
[7] For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion must be dismissed.
ORDER
The plaintiff's motion is dismissed.
Ottawa, Ontario
September 29, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Michel Lavoie v. Correctional Service Canada |
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DENAULT J. |
| DATED: September 29, 2000 |
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
| Michel Lavoie PLAINTIFF FOR HIMSELF |
| Éric Lafrenière FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content