Date: 20080711
Docket: T-1020-07
Citation: 2008
FC 866
Halifax, Nova Scotia, July 11, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Applicant
and
KEYVAN
NOURHAGHIGHI
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O’KEEFE J.
[1]
As stated
by Keyvan Nourhaghighi (the respondent), this is a motion for:
a. The reconsideration of the
order O’Keefe J dated November 6, 2007, at the last term of the order that: the
respondent shall have his costs of this motion and such costs shall be assessed
by an assessment officer (“Order”) by amending the term to a lump sum awards of
costs that may deem just; and the time be extended to the date of hearing of
this motion by O’Keefe J.
b. The costs of this motion be
fixed in the amount of $1500.00 to be paid forthwith.
c. Such other relief that the
Moving Party may ask and may be permitted.
[2]
A motion
to reconsider an order is governed by Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules,
S.O.R./98-106 which reads as follows:
|
397.(1)
Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the
Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request
that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its
terms on the ground that
(a) the order
does not accord with any reasons given for it; or
(b) a matter
that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
(2) Clerical
mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the
Court.
|
397.(1)
Dans les 10 jours après qu’une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre
délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de
requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l’ordonnance, telle qu’elle était
constituée à ce moment, d’en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement
pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons suivantes :
a)
l’ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été
donnés pour la justifier;
b)
une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise
involontairement.
(2)
Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les
ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour.
|
[3]
As the respondent’s
motion for reconsideration was filed on February 27, 2008, the motion was not
filed within 10 days after the making of my order or the amended order. As
such, the respondent must obtain an extension of time for the filing of the
motion.
[4]
In Vinogradov v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 647, Mr. Justice
MacKay a former judge of this Court stated at paragraph 2 of his decision:
[…]
For the reasons set out below in dealing with the application for an extension
of time to file an application record, in seeking leave for an extension of
time for reconsideration of the decision the applicant is required to set out a
reasonable explanation for the delay and to provide a basis for the Court to
conclude that there is an arguable case that warrants the exercise of
discretion to extend the time for applying. […]
[5]
From the respondent’s
affidavit, filed materials and submissions, it appears that the respondent
wishes to make this motion because of the alleged delay in the assessment of
his costs and because of the orders of Mr. Justice Kelen and Madam Justice
MacTavish. The respondent provided no specific explanation for the delay in
filing for a reconsideration of my order.
[6]
I am not satisfied
that the respondent has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in
filing the motion for reconsideration of my order.
[7]
I am also not
satisfied that the materials submitted provide a basis upon which to conclude
that there is an arguable case that warrants the exercise of my discretion to
extend the time for applying for a reconsideration of my order.
[8]
As a result, the
respondent’s request for an extension of time to file his motion must be denied.
Consequently, the respondent’s motion for reconsideration is also denied.
[9]
In the alternative,
even if the extension of time had been granted, I would not have been satisfied
that the motion could be granted as my order with respect to costs is clear on
its face and no matter that should have been dealt with was overlooked or
accidentally omitted.
[10]
There shall be no
costs awarded for this motion.
ORDER
[11]
IT IS
ORDERED that:
1. The respondent's motion for an
extension of time to file his motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
2. The respondent's motion for
reconsideration is dismissed.
There shall be no order for costs for this motion.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
Email this Content