Thibodeau v. Canada (Minister of Transport), 2002 FCT 386

Date: 20020409

Docket: 02-T-15

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 386

Montréal, Quebec, April 9, 2002

Before: Pinard J.

BETWEEN:

DOMINIC THIBODEAU

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT

OF CANADA

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

PINARD J.

[1]        By his motion the applicant is seeking to have extended the 30-day deadline provided for in s. II.45 of the Airport Restricted Area Access Clearance Program (ARAACP) for filing an application to review a decision by the Minister of Transport of Canada on November 14, 2001. Section II.45 reads as follows:

When a clearance is revoked or an application for a clearance is denied an application for review may be directed to the Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice of revocation or denial.

[2]        That decision, which the applicant admitted he learned of on November 16, 2001, denied him a security clearance to move about in Dorval Airport's restricted areas.

[3]        In my opinion, the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for his delay of over four months in filing his application for review. It was not until February 7, 2002, after attempting in vain to get explanations from the decision-maker and enlist the support of his union representative, that he finally consulted a lawyer. Although he argued that he did not learn of the existence of the prescribed 30-day deadline for filing his application to review the decision in question until February 25, 2002, he still did not file the instant application to extend the deadline in the Registry of this Court until March 13, 2002.

[4]        In the circumstances, the applicant's ignorance of the length of the prescribed deadline combined with his negligence or recklessness certainly does not provide an acceptable reason to explain all the delay and justify the extension requested (see McGill v. M.N.R., 63 N.R. 29; Kibale v. Transport Canada (1990), 103 N.R. 387).

[5]        Further, the applicant did not mention the occurrence of any unforeseen or unexpected event which prevented him from asserting his right to apply for review earlier (see Chin v. M.E.I. (1994), 22 Imm. L.R. (2d) 136).

[6]        The motion is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.

                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                                                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

FILE:                                                                               02-T-15

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                     DOMINIC THIBODEAU

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT OF CANADA

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                  April 8, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY:         PINARD J.

DATED:                                                                           April 9, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Richard A. Morand                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT

Chantal Sauriol                                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Richard A. Morand                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec