Date: 20081027
Docket: T-2169-07
Citation: 2008 FC 1203
Ottawa, Ontario, October 27,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
YURI BOIKO
Plaintiff
‑and‑
CANADIAN
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Defendant
TRANSCRIPT OF REASONS FOR ORDER
Let the
attached edited version of the transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered
orally from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on Thursday
September 11, 2008, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Courts
Act.
"Luc Martineau"
Court
File No: T‑2169-07
FEDERAL
COURT
BETWEEN:
YURI
BOIKO
Plaintiff
‑and‑
CANADIAN
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Defendant
* *
* * *
DECISION
OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU
DELIVERED
ORALLY FROM THE BENCH
at
the Courts Administration Service,
Room
1104, 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa,
Ontario,
on
Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 10:50 a.m.
* *
* * *
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Yuri Boiko on
his own behalf
Mr. Christopher Rootham on
behalf of the Defendant
A.S.A.P.
Reporting Services Inc. 8 (2008)
200 Elgin Street, Suite 1105 130
King Street W, Suite 1800
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1L5 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1E3
(613) 564-2727 (416)
861-8720
Ottawa, Ontario
‑‑‑ Upon commencing the
Decision of the Honourable
Mr. Justice Martineau delivered orally
from the
bench on Thursday, September 11, 2008
at 10:50 a.m.
JUSTICE MARTINEAU: I will read
you my decision which I am delivering orally from the bench.
The Plaintiff seeks to appeal a
decision of Prothonotary Tabib, dated September 5, 2005. In essence, the
Plaintiff seeks an adjournment of Defendant’s motion to strike his claim which
is scheduled to be heard today by Prothonotary Aronovitch. I note that it is
the second time that a request for adjournment is made and denied by the
prothonotary.
I can only intervene with the
discretionary decision rendered on September 5, 2008 by the prothonotary if the
questions raised in the motion are vital to the final issue of the case, which
is not the case with respect to an adjournment, or if the prothonotary based
her decision on a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
In this regard, I have read the
parties’ written representations and also considered their submissions orally
made before me today. I have decided after due consideration to accept the
arguments made by the Defendant.
I realize the challenge a
self-represented litigant like the Plaintiff faces in this proceeding, but in
the absence of some compelling legal error made by the prothonotary, the
hearing of the Defendant’s motion to strike should proceed today as scheduled
and as already announced to the Plaintiff upon the serving and filing of the
Defendant’s motion to strike last July 28, 2008.
I also wish to state that a
reasonable person would not come to the conclusion that the conduct or
decisions made earlier by the prothonotary in this proceeding raise a
reasonable apprehension of bias. While the Plaintiff may disagree with the
prothonotary’s findings and conclusions, this is simply not a ground for
alleging bias which is a very serious reproach.
That being said, I do not need to
decide whether the prothonotary was right or wrong in qualifying the second
motion for adjournment as an abuse of process. It is suffice to state that
other convincing reasons not to grant an adjournment are contained in the two
decisions made by the prothonotary.
In conclusion and for those
reasons, I am dismissing the present motion in appeal. Moreover, in the
exercise of my discretion and considering all relevant factors, there will be
no costs.
My order will read as follows:
Upon hearing the motion of the Plaintiff for an order to appeal the decision of
Prothonotary Tabib issued on September 5, 2005 and for the reasons delivered
from the bench, this Court orders that the motion in appeal be dismissed
without costs.
--- Whereupon the Court concluded at 10:55
a.m.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I have, to
the best
of my skills and abilities,
accurately recorded
by Stenomask and transcribed
therefrom, the foregoing proceeding.
Suzanne Hubbard, Stenomask Reporter
Email this Content