Date:
20060220
Docket: A-393-05
Citation: 2006 FCA
78
Present: THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
ÉRIC SARRAZIN
7470, 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
Telephone: 514-394-7200
Respondent
Written motion decided without appearance
by the parties.
Order made at
Ottawa, Ontario, on
February 20, 2006.
REASONS
FOR ORDER: PELLETIER
J.A.
Date:
20060220
Docket: A-393-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 78
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
ÉRIC SARRAZIN
7470, 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
Telephone: 514-394-7200
Respondent
REASONS FOR
ORDER
PELLETIER J.
[1]
Following
a complaint filed by the appellant, Mr. Sarrazin, the Deputy Privacy
Commissioner of Canada issued a final report on March 15, 2005, in which she
recommended that the respondent Aéroports de Montréal provide the appellant
within 30 days with certain personal information he was seeking, and if
necessary provide within the same time period any reasons to justify its
refusal to comply with her recommendations.
[2]
It would appear
that the respondent has not complied with any of the recommendations made by
the Deputy Commissioner. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (the Act), provides for a 45‑day
period of time from the date of a report for filing an application for a remedy
arising from the report. This period of time elapsed without the appellant
making any application. It was not until July 19, 2005 that the appellant filed
in the Federal Court an application for an extension of time to file his notice
of application. On August 18, 2005, the Federal Court dismissed the application
for an extension. The appellant appealed this decision to this Court on
September 9, 2005, the date his notice of appeal was filed. Since that date, the
appellant has done nothing to prosecute his case.
[3]
On January
5, 2006, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for delay. In
response, counsel for the appellant filed his own affidavit in which he stated
that counsel for the respondent had never tried to contact him to negotiate an
agreement on the appeal record, and what is more had never given him an
opportunity to remedy any procedural defect. He raised the stakes by also
filing an application for an extension of time to file an agreement on the
content of the appeal record, without thereby admitting that such an agreement
had been made between the parties, relying once again on his own affidavit. The
respondent did not object to the notice for an extension of time except by its
motion to dismiss the appeal.
[4]
Rule 82 of
the Rules for regulating the Practice and Procedure in the Federal Court of
Appeal and the Federal Court provides that, except with leave of the Court,
a solicitor shall not both depose to an affidavit and present argument to the
Court based on that affidavit. In the case at bar,
[5]
Despite
these procedural defects, however, it is not in the interests of justice to
close the door at this stage to someone alleging, without denegation on the
part of the respondent, that a federal agency has ignored a recommendation from
the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The motion to dismiss is dismissed as
being premature. The motion for an extension of time is also dismissed on the
ground that there is no evidence to support the motion.
[6]
As the
notice of appeal was filed on September 9, 2005, the appellant will in the next
few weeks receive a status review notice. If the appellant wishes to pursue his
appeal, he will file with the Court in response to the status review notice:
- his submissions
on the merits of his appeal and his wish to proceed, and explaining from his
failure to act with respect to his appeal;
- either the
agreement concluded between the parties on the content of the appeal record and
a motion for an extension of time to file it, or a motion for an order
determining the content of the appeal record;
- his
undertaking to comply with all other deadlines set out in the Rules as to the
subsequent stages of his appeal.
[7]
If he does
not satisfy the Court’s concerns about these points, the appellant is exposed
to have his appeal struck out.
“J.D.
Denis Pelletier”
Certified
true translation
François
Brunet, LLB, BCL
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.
DATED: February
20, 2006
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS:
Mathieu
Marchand FOR THE APPELLANT
Lukasz
Granosik FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Mathieu
Marchand FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal,
Quebec
Ogilvy
Renault FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content