Docket: A-200-14
Citation: 2014 FCA 286
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ROBERT RAINVILLE
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.A.
[1]
For the following reasons, I conclude that the
appeal should be dismissed.
[2]
On April 9, 2014, the appellant filed a
notice of appeal from the decision of Tremblay‑Lamer J. (the judge) issued
on March 10, 2014, and dismissing his motion for an extension of time to
file an application for judicial review of the offender grievance response
decision (third level) regarding grievance No. V30R00015777 dated
November 20, 2013.
[3]
As appears from the order, the judge dismissed
the appellant’s motion for an extension of time on the basis that he had given
no explanation for the delay, had not shown a continuing intention to pursue
the application and had not satisfied her that there were serious arguments in
his case.
[4]
Following the filing of the agreement on the
content of the record on May 8, 2014, the case remained inactive until the
parties were served with a notice of status review issued by Trudel J.A. on
October 16, 2014.
[5]
In reply to the notice of status review, the
appellant filed, on November 17, 2014, his submissions stating the reasons
why the proceeding should not be dismissed for delay and also explaining why
the case had remained inactive since May 8, 2014.
[6]
According to the appellant, the delay was caused
by a variety of administrative changes at his counsel’s firm. The appellant
explained that because of flooding at his counsel’s firm and his counsel’s many
office and file moves, his counsel had been unable to properly keep up with his
cases. The appellant also explained that because his counsel’s new secretary
was unfamiliar with the deadline registers, she was unable to see that the
deadline had expired in his file.
[7]
The appellant explained that, as a result of
these events, his counsel’s firm had to be restructured and the restructuring
was completed in late September 2014, through, among other things, the
hiring of new employees and the completion of the move to the firm’s new
offices. According to the appellant, all of this explains why his counsel did
not realize that he was late in this file until receiving the notice of status
review.
[8]
In my opinion, these explanations are not acceptable
and cannot justify the delay in proceeding with this case and, in particular,
in filing the appellant’s appeal book and memorandum. It is important to
mention that the appellant did not file any affidavits from his counsel or his
counsel’s employees to explain the events at his counsel’s firm.
[9]
It is also important to mention that the appellant
does not make any arguments regarding the chances of his appeal succeeding. At
the very least the appellant should have attempted to convince me that his appeal
was not futile.
[10]
In these circumstances, there is only one
possible conclusion and that is to dismiss the appeal with costs.
“M Nadon”
“I agree.
J.D.
Denis Pelletier, J.A.”
“I agree.
Johanne Trudel, J.A.”
Certified true
translation
François Brunet,
Revisor
Email this Content