Date: 20120215
Dockets: A-237-11
A-244-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 52
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
VLASTA
STUBICAR
Appellant
and
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February
15, 2012.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on February
15, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE
COURT
Date:
20120215
Dockets: A-237-11
A-244-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 52
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
VLASTA STUBICAR
Appellant
and
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT
[1]
The
appellant launched two appeals against interlocutory decisions of the Federal
Court which confirmed two orders issued by Prothonotary Morneau, one in file
A-237-11, the other in file A-244-11.
[2]
In file
A-237-11, Prothonotary Morneau rejected the appellant’s motion to strike the
public and confidential affidavits of the respondent. He applied the principles
developed in Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al. (1994), 176 N.R. 48 and found
that the appellant’s case was not so exceptional as to allow a motion to strike
proceedings in the course of a judicial review application.
[3]
On appeal
from the dismissal of the appellant’s motion, Martineau J. of the Federal Court
ruled that he was neither satisfied that the appeal raised a question vital to
the final issue nor that the Prothonotary’s discretionary order was clearly
wrong. Martineau J. also agreed that the judge hearing the judicial review
application is in the best position to determine, in light of the entire
evidentiary record, what evidence, if any, should be struck from the affidavit
and whether the confidential affidavit is appropriate. Consequently, he
dismissed the appeal.
[4]
In file
A-244-11, the appellant made a motion for production of documents pursuant to
Rule 318 of the Federal Courts Rules. In an order issued on May 19,
2011, Prothonotary Morneau accepted the respondent’s argument that the question
of the respondent’s obligation under Rule 318 had already been confirmed by the
Court and fulfilled by the respondent. Therefore, he refused to grant any of
the remedies requested by the appellant.
[5]
The
appellant’s appeal from this order of Prothonotary Morneau to the Federal Court
was dismissed by Harrington J. who confirmed that the appellant’s motion under
Rule 318 was redundant as well as a collateral attack on another order
previously rendered by Prothonotary Morneau. In addition, he was of the view
that he could not interfere with the Prothonotary’s exercise of discretion
since the Prothonorary was clearly right in coming to his conclusion.
[6]
We have
not been convinced that Martineau J. and Harrington J. committed errors which
would justify our intervention. The two appeals will be dismissed with costs
limited to one set for the hearing on appeal.
[7]
Copy of
these reasons will be filed in file A-244-11.
“Gilles
Létourneau”
“Marc Noël”
“J.D. Denis Pelletier”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-237-11
and A-244-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: VLASTA
STUBICAR v. DEPUTY PRIME
MINISTER AND MINISTER OF
PUBLIC
SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: February 15, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: THE COURT (LÉTOURNEAU J.A., NOËL J.A.
and PELLETIER J.A.)
DATED: February 15, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
Vlasta Stubicar
|
SELF-REPRESENTED
|
|
Jacques Mimar
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
|
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content