Docket: A-68-22
Citation: 2022 FCA 98
CORAM: LOCKE J.A.
MACTAVISH J.A.
ROUSSEL J.A.
| BETWEEN:
|
| GARY DAVID BROWN, A.K.A. GARY DAVID ROBERT BROWN
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL ONTARIO (“SBTO”), THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO (“MAG”), LEGAL AID ONTARIO (“LAO”) AND THE CITY OF TORONTO (“TORONTO”), ALL PAST AND PRESENT ASSIGNS AND AGENTS THEREOF AND ALL HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS OF SAME
|
| Respondents
|
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 1, 2022.
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
|
LOCKE J.A.
|
| CONCURRED IN BY:
|
MACTAVISH J.A.
ROUSSEL J.A.
|
Docket: A-68-22
Citation: 2022 FCA 98
CORAM: LOCKE J.A.
MACTAVISH J.A.
ROUSSEL J.A.
| BETWEEN:
|
| GARY DAVID BROWN, A.K.A. GARY DAVID ROBERT BROWN
|
| Appellant
|
| and
|
| SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL ONTARIO (“SBTO”), THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO (“MAG”), LEGAL AID ONTARIO (“LAO”) AND THE CITY OF TORONTO (“TORONTO”), ALL PAST AND PRESENT ASSIGNS AND AGENTS THEREOF AND ALL HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS OF SAME
|
| Respondents
|
REASONS FOR ORDER
LOCKE J.A.
[1] The respondent City of Toronto moves for summary dismissal of the present appeal, with costs. None of the other parties has responded to the present motion.
[2] The subject of the present appeal is an Order of the Federal Court (per Justice Elizabeth Walker) dated March 2, 2022 in Court File No. 22-T-7, which dismissed the appellant’s motion for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review. The proposed judicial review concerned a decision of a provincial tribunal, the Social Benefits Tribunal of Ontario, whose decisions are reviewable by the Ontario Divisional Court. In its Order, the Federal Court (i) considered whether the proposed application had some merit, (ii) concluded that it did not, and (iii) dismissed the motion on that basis. Specifically, the Federal Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review a decision of a provincial administrative tribunal.
[3] This Court may quash or summarily dismiss an appeal where there is such a manifest lack of substance that it is clearly bound to fail: Martinez v. Canada (Communications Security Establishment), 2019 FCA 282. This is the case here. The Federal Court was clearly correct to conclude that it did not have jurisdiction. Moreover, it was correct to dismiss the appellant’s motion on that basis. The appeal is clearly bound to fail.
[4] I would grant the present motion and I would dismiss the present appeal, with costs to the respondent City of Toronto.
"George R. Locke"
"I agree.
Anne L. Mactavish J.A."
"I agree.
Sylvie E. Roussel J.A."
Email this Content