Date : 20020527
Docket : 02-T-18
Neutral citation : 2002 FCT 600
BETWEEN:
JAYLYNN ENTERPRISES LIMITED, a body corporate,
ROBERT J. RICHARDS and SANDRA L. RICHARDS
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
McGILLIS, J.
[1] I have considered all of the documentation filed on the motion to extend the time for filing an application for judicial review of the decision of the Information Commissioner dated February 27, 2001, and have determined that the motion must be dismissed. In order to place this matter in some context, the procedural history must be briefly reviewed.
[2] On April 12, 2001, the applicants filed an application for judicial review in file no.
T-628-01, purporting to challenge decisions of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. On October 3, 2001, Aronovitch P. struck that application without prejudice to the right of the applicants to bring a further application in accordance with the terms of the endorsement.
[3] On January 7, 2002, the applicants filed an application for judicial review in file no.
T-32-02, purporting to challenge decisions of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner. On March 20, 2002, Pinard J. struck that application on the ground that it challenged two different decisions, thereby breaching Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. In his Reasons for Order and Order, Pinard J. further stated as follows:
The applicants remain at liberty to serve and file two separate applications for judicial review of the above-noted decisions (dated February 27, 2001 and November 15, 2001, respectively), provided they have first sought and obtained from this Court any necessary extension of time. However, no such extension of time will be required with respect to the decision made under the Privacy Act if the application for judicial review of that decision is served and filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
[4] On April 10, 2002, the applicants filed a motion for an extension of time to serve and file an application for judicial review of the decision of the Information Commissioner dated February 27, 2001. On May 6, 2002, I issued Directions to Registry in which I stated that the Court would not consider the motion until the applicants' affidavit complied with Rule 80(3). The applicants filed an amended affidavit on May 10, 2002.
[5] In the amended affidavit filed in support of the motion, the applicants have failed to provide any explanation for the three month period of delay between the striking of the application in file no. T-628-01 by Aronovitch P. on October 3, 2001 and the filing of the next application in file no. T-32-02 on January 7, 2002. The applicants have also failed to provide any explanation for the three week period of delay between the striking of the application in file no. T-32-02 by Pinard J. on March 20, 2002 and the filing of the motion for an extension of time on April 10, 2002. Furthermore, the applicants have failed to establish the existence of an arguable case. In the circumstances, I have concluded, in the exercise of my discretion, that the motion for an extension of time must be dismissed.
[6] IT IS ORDERED THAT the motion is dismissed. No order as to costs.
"D. McGillis"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 27, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: 02-T-18
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAYLYNN ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND OTHERS
v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM
JUSTICE MCGILLIS
DATED: May 27, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
G.F. Philip Romney FOR THE APPLICANT
John J. Ashley FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Romney & Romney FOR THE APPLICANT
Barristers & Solicitors
Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
Mr. Morris A. Rosenburg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content