Date: 20220325
Dockets: A-182-18
A-186-18
Citation: 2022 FCA 54
[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
| Ottawa, Ontario, March 25, 2022
Present: NOËL C.J.
Docket: A-182-18
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| THE COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
|
| Respondents
|
| and
|
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE ASSOCIATION DES JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK, AND THE QUEBEC COMMUNITY GROUPS NETWORK
|
| Interveners
|
| Docket: A-186-18
|
| BETWEEN:
|
| LA FÉDÉRATION DES FRANCOPHONES DE
LA COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUE
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA AND THE CANADA EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
|
| Respondents
|
| and
|
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE ASSOCIATION DES JURISTES D’EXPRESSION FRANÇAISE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK, AND THE QUEBEC COMMUNITY GROUPS NETWORK
|
| Interveners
|
ORDER
This morning, this Court took cognizance of a letter from counsel for the respondents indicating their intent to apply for an emergency stay of this Court’s judgment rendered on January 28, 2022. The respondents have had this judgment in hand for close to two months now.
This morning, I issued a direction inviting the parties to be heard by teleconference at 12:00 p.m. today regarding the sole issue as to whether a panel to hear the motion for a stay should be constituted at this juncture.
This Court has now had the benefit of hearing the parties on this issue.
Any irreparable harm and prejudice likely to arise from our judgment would have been known to the respondents as of January 28, 2022. In fact, this Court’s reasons (paragraph 194) address the implications of the two years’ notice that must be given to terminate the Agreement, and indeed, this Court endeavoured to render its judgment promptly given the issues at stake, with the specific aim of giving the respondents the time needed to act, if they believed that the judgment could cause them harm.
A motion for a stay can be filed quickly and is easy to initiate. The law is well known and the respondents have had two months to think about it. For unexplained reasons, except bureaucratic stagnation, they did nothing. Not until today did they apply for a stay. This undermines any form of urgency.
The late filing of the stay application constitutes at the very least an abuse of process. Our Court has already explained in its judgment why the two years’ notice had to be given on March 29, 2022. The respondents, having communicated their intention to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, may apply to this Court for a stay of this time limit, and that is the avenue that they will have to take.
The request to constitute a panel to hear the respondents’ motion is denied.
The original order will be filed in A-182-18 and a copy thereof will be filed in A‑186-18.
“Marc Noël”
Certified true translation
Janine Anderson, Jurilinguist
Email this Content