Date: 20060508
Docket: A-393-05
Citation: 2006 FCA
170
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
ÉRIC SARRAZIN
7470, rue Denis-Jamet, app. 3
Montréal (Québec) H1E 6V5
Appellant
and
AÉROPORTS DE
MONTRÉAL (ADM)
1100, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, bureau
2100
Montréal (Québec) H3B 4X8
Respondent
Written motion decided without appearance
by the parties.
Order made at
Ottawa, Ontario, on May
8, 2006.
REASONS FOR ORDER: PELLETIER
J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY
J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20060508
Docket:
A-393-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 170
CORAM: DÉCARY
J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ÉRIC SARRAZIN
7470, rue Denis-Jamet, app. 3
Montréal (Québec) H1E 6V5
Appellant
and
AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL (ADM)
1100, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, bureau
2100
Montréal (Québec) H3B 4X8
Respondent
REASONS FOR
ORDER
PELLETIER
J.A.
[1]
The
appellant is appealing a Federal Court judgment which denied him an extension
of time to file a notice of application for judicial review from a decision of
the Assistant Privacy Commissioner. Once his notice of appeal was filed, the
appellant did nothing further with his case until the respondent filed a motion
to dismiss the notice of appeal. The appellant objected to this motion and
filed his own motion for an extension of time to file the agreement on the
content of the appeal record. It is apparent on the face of the motion that no
agreement was reached between the parties as to the content of the appeal
record.
[2]
A judge of
this Court dismissed both motions. In so doing, he drew the appellant’s
attention to the fact that he would shortly be receiving a status review notice
and would do well to respond to that. The appellant will have to explain his
failure to act since filing his notice of appeal. It would be advisable to file
either the agreement on the content of the appeal record or a motion to
determine the content of the appeal record together with a motion for an
extension of time.
[3]
What was
bound to happen happened: the appellant received the status review notice and
responded. However, his reply did not provide any reasons for his failure to
act since filing his notice of appeal and was not accompanied by an agreement
as to the content of the appeal record nor by a motion asking that this Court
determine the content of the record.
[4]
In short,
the appellant did not comply with the deadlines for filing his notice of
application for judicial review and did not observe the deadlines relating to
his appeal. It would have been in his interest to show that, in spite of
everything, his case was meritorious and there was an explanation for the
delay. He did neither of these things. Accordingly, the Court has nothing
before it to suggest that dismissal of this dilatory appeal would lead to
injustice.
[5]
The notice
of appeal will be dismissed for delay.
“J.D. Denis Pelletier”
I
concur.
Robert Décary J.A.
I
concur.
Gilles Létourneau J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-393-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: ÉRIC
SARRAZIN
v.
AÉROPORTS
DE MONTRÉAL (ADM)
WRITTEN
MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pelletier J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A.
Létourneau J.A.
DATED: May 8, 2006
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS:
|
Mathieu Marchand
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
|
Lukasz Granosik
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Mathieu Marchand
Montréal,
Quebec
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
|
Lukasz
Granosik
Montréal,
Quebec
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content