Date:
20100113
Docket: 09-A-40
Citation: 2010 FCA
10
Present: NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
SERGE
DOMPIERRE
Applicant
and
DAUBOIS – COMPANY
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order
delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 13, 2010.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: NADON
J.A.
Date:
20100113
Docket:
09-A-40
Citation: 2010 FCA 10
Present: NADON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
SERGE
DOMPIERRE
Applicant
and
DAUBOIS – COMPANY
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Respondent
REASONS FOR
ORDER
NADON J.A.
[1]
The
applicant, Serge Dompierre, has applied to the Court for an extension of time
to file an application for judicial review of a decision by Umpire Marin, dated
October 12, 2009 (CUB 73274).
[2]
In
Alain Laurendeau v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2003 FCA
445, my colleague Justice Pelletier dismissed a similar motion for the
following reasons:
[1] The applicant is
asking for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a
decision by an umpire under the Employment Insurance Act, dated
July 14, 2000.
[2] The jurisprudence is
consistent: when a party moves for an extension of time, a valid explanation
must be provided to justify the delay - the entire period of the delay - in
filing an application for judicial review. Secondly, the moving party must
persuade the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
application for judicial review is well-founded. See Tarsen Singh Grewal v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 263 (F.C.A.).
[3] The moving party's
explanation for the delay in filing his application for judicial review is
insufficient because it does not offer any explanation as to why, over a
three-year period, he was content not to do anything to advance his appeal.
This is not explained by the fact that he was still waiting for additional
information from the assistant registrar at the Office of the Umpire.
[4] What is still more
important for the purposes of his motion, however, is the absence of any reason
that would suggest that his application for judicial review is well-founded. He
has not put forward any grounds that would warrant the intervention of this
Court in the matter of the Umpire's refusal to grant his application to amend
under section 120 of the Employment Insurance Act.
[5] For these reasons, the
application for an extension of time is dismissed with costs.
[3]
In
this case, the moving party has not raised any argument that persuades me that
his application for judicial review might succeed. Accordingly, his application
for an extension of time is dismissed.
“M.
Nadon”
Certified
True Translation
Francie
Gow, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 09-A-40
STYLE OF CAUSE: SERGE
DOMPIERRE v. DAUBOIS –
COMPANY,
DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES
MOTION
DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.A.
DATED: January 13, 2010
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Serge Dompierre
|
REPRESENTING
HIMSELF
|
|
Pauline Leroux
|
FOR
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
Email this Content