Date: 20020103
Docket: T-1736-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 3
Toronto, Ontario, Thursday the 3rd day of January, 2002
Present: Peter A. K. Giles, Esquire
Associate Senior Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
PURANDHAR SETLUR
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] By the motion before me the Respondent seeks an extension of time. The Responding Applicant has filed a 149 page record opposing the motion.
[2] The Applicant requests:
(a) That the Respondent's motion be denied;
(b) His application be converted into an action pursuant to section 17 of the Federal Court Act;
(c) The cost of filing his Notice of Application along with incidentals;
(d) Cost of the transcription of the tapes of the hearing before Monk;
(e) $6,000 for the time, research and work done in replying to this motion pursuant to Rule 400, particularly 3(g), (h), (i) and (o) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998;
(f) Should this application not be converted to an action by this Honourable Court, the matter be transferred to the Appeal Division of the Federal Court of Canada by setting aside the Respondent's letter of refusal (Exhibit 10) and invoking section 21.1 of the Public Service Employment Act;
(g) A stay in the Applicant's adherence to the Federal Court Rules, 1998 in the Trial Division, in this proceeding, until a judgment is rendered.
[3] The Applicant relies primarily on Main Rehabilitation Co. v. M.N.R., [2000] 1 C.T.C 215 which is quoted on p. 630 of Federal Court Practice 2001 as authority for the proposition that a party is not relieved from complying with the time limits set out in the Rules for filing affidavits merely because a tribunal record requested under Rule 317 has not been provided or is incomplete.
[4] I note that immediately after the statement quoted by the Responding Applicant, Lafrenière P. goes on to state:
It would appear that an application for an extension of time is therefore the proper procedure in the circumstances.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The moving party's motion is granted and an extension of 10 days from the date of this order is hereby provided to commence after the end of the vacation.
2. The request for conversion into an action is denied. Any such conversion could only be made upon the filing of a motion for that purpose.
3. There will be no costs of this motion because while the costs of an extension are usually awarded against the moving party, in this case the unnecessary work created by the 149 page affidavit removes any entitlement of the Responding Applicant to costs.
4. The Responding Applicant can pay his own costs of transcription of tapes.
5. Costs not having been awarded to the Responding Applicant, Rule 400 3(g), (h), (i), (o) do not have to be considered.
6. With regard to the request for transfer to the Appeal Division, this relief having been previously denied, I do not have jurisdiction to grant it at this time.
7. The request for a stay in the application of the Rules is dismissed.
8. The timing for all future steps is to be measured from the date set by the extension herein granted.
"Peter A. K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
January 3, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-1736-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: PURANDHAR SETLUR
Applicant
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER AND
ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P.
DATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Purandhar Setlur
For the Applicant, on his own behalf
Christine Mohr
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Purandhar Setlur
1023 Elizabeth Place
Oakville, Ontario
L6H 3H8
For the Applicant, on his own behalf
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20020103
Docket: T-1736-01
Between:
PURANDHAR SETLUR
Applicant
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content