Date: 20090325
Docket: A-222-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 98
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
RICHARD
JAMES POLLITT
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 25, 2009.
Judgment delivered at Toronto,
Ontario, on March 25, 2009.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL
J.A.
CONCURRED
IN BY: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
Date: 20090325
Docket: A-222-08
Citation: 2009 FCA 98
CORAM: DESJARDINS
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
RICHARD JAMES POLLITT
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TRUDEL J.A.
[1]
Since
2003, Mr. Pollitt, who represents himself, has been unsuccessful in his
attempts to have rulings made by the Employment Insurance Commission reversed.
His appeals were dismissed at all levels.
[2]
This
application for judicial review presents itself as yet another attempt to this
end. We are of the view that it cannot succeed.
[3]
The
decision under review is that of Umpire Teitelbaum who dismissed an application
brought by Mr. Pollitt pursuant to section 120 of the Employment Insurance
Act, R.C.S. 1996, c. 23 seeking reconsideration of a previous and similar
reconsideration decision of Umpire Marin (CUB 66379B, September 14, 2007). Umpire Marin found that the applicant presented no new facts to
justify his intervention, noting that the applicant “has developed a pattern of
evasiveness.” Umpire Marin concluded that no further reconsideration would be
entertained.
[4]
The
applicant alleges no error in the reconsideration decision of Umpire
Teitelbaum. His arguments are all aimed at Umpire Marin’s original decision,
whereby Umpire Marin dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of the
Board of Referees (CUB 66379A, April 3, 2007).
[5]
The
applicant neither challenged the original decision, nor sought an extension of
time to do so (Corbett v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FCA 292 at paragraph 6).
[6]
Quoting
from Decary J.A. in Nickerson v. Canada (Employment Insurance Commission), 2006 FCA 110:
[3] This
Court has said repeatedly that absent special circumstances it will not use a
judicial review of the reconsideration decision as a vehicle to attack
collaterally the original decision. The fact that an applicant is
self-represented does not in itself constitute special circumstances. (see Clow
v.
Canada(Employment Insurance Commission), [2004] FCA 439; Mansour v. Canada
(Attorney General), [2001] FCA 328; Schooner
v.
Canada(Attorney General),
[2004] FCA 411).
[7]
The applicant has raised no special circumstances warranting a departure
from this principle. Moreover, this Court will not review a decision which is
time-barred.
[8]
Therefore,
this application for judicial review will be dismissed without costs.
“Johanne Trudel”
“I concur
Alice
Desjardins J.A.”
“I
agree
Marc
Noël J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
(AN APPLICATION
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW MADE BY UMPIRE, MR. MAX M. TEITELBAUM, OF DECISION IN FILE
NO. CUB66379B, DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2008.)
DOCKET: A-222-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: Richard James Pollitt v.
Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 25, 2009
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
DATED: MARCH 25, 2009
APPEARANCES:
Richard James
Pollitt
|
FOR THE APPLICANT (SELF-REPRESENTED)
|
Sharon
McGovern
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
John H. Sims.
Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|