Date: 20071103
Docket: T-1173-07
Citation: 2008 FC 1219
Toronto, Ontario, November 3,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
STANLEY LEONARD
POMFRET
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr. Stanley Pomfret maintains that a Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) of
the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) wrongly denied his request to be
reimbursed for a Playstation and accessories that were seized from his cell in
2006. The SDC concluded that these items were unauthorized and, therefore,
properly seized.
[2]
Mr. Pomfret asks me to overturn the SDC’s decision. However, I have
found that his application for judicial review is out of time and must,
therefore, be dismissed.
[3]
The threshold issue is whether Mr. Pomfret began these proceedings in a
timely way.
I.
Factual Background
[4]
On March 10, 2006, Mr. Pomfret was transferred from Mountain Institution
to Kent Institution. When his belongings were packed for him, some items,
including a Playstation and some disks and games, were seized by CSC staff
members. He signed a seizure notice on April 8, 2006, which told him that he
had 30 days (from the date of seizure) to provide proof of ownership for these
items. Mr. Pomfret tried, but failed, to obtain proof. He then made a claim for
reimbursement in the amount of $577.98.
[5]
The Acting Warden at Kent denied his claim because of the absence of
proof of ownership. Mr. Pomfret appealed that decision and, in November 2006,
an Assistant Deputy Commissioner denied it. Mr. Pomfret took his claim to the
next level and, on January 24, 2007, the SDC again denied it for absence of
proof of ownership.
[6]
On March 5, 2007, Mr. Pomfret requested a reconsideration of the SDC’s
decision. He received a letter from the Director of Offender Redress denying
his request on May 29, 2007. Mr Pomfret filed his application for judicial
review on June 25, 2007.
II. Did
Mr. Pomfret file his application in time?
[7]
An applicant must file an application for judicial review within 30 days
of receiving the decision to be reviewed (s. 18.1 Federal Courts Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). Here, Mr. Pomfret was clearly out of time for filing an
application for judicial review in relation to the decision of the SDC.
[8]
Mr. Pomfret suggests that the decision under review was really made in
two stages – the first part was the decision of the SDC on his grievance and
the second part was the decision not to reconsider the grievance. Therefore, he
argues, his application for judicial review was filed on time.
[9]
I cannot agree with Mr. Pomfret on this point. His submissions relate
solely to the original decision. Further, a request to reconsider or reopen a
decision does not extend the time for filing an application for judicial
review: Didone v. Sakno, 2003 FC 1530, [2003 ] F.C.J. No. 1945
(QL), aff’d 2005 FCA 62; Taylor v. Public Service Commission of
Canada, 2003 FCT 566, [2003] F.C.J. No. 730 (QL).
III. Conclusion
and Disposition
[10]
Mr. Pomfret’s application for judicial review in respect of the SDC’s
decision of January 24, 2007 was not filed until June 25, 2007, well after the
30-day deadline. Accordingly, I must dismiss his application for judicial
review. There is no order relating to costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that
1. The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content