Date: 19990707
Docket: T-498-99
BETWEEN:
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Applicant
- and -
ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES A.S.P.
[1] In the motion before me the moving party ("Varma") seeks an order setting in abeyance the Canada Post Corporation"s ("Post") requisition for a hearing date or in the alternative that the hearing be set down for at least seven days.
[2] The main application to which this motion is interlocutory is by Post and seeks an order under section 40 of the Federal Court Act against Varma. Varma moved the Court in writing for a jury trial and separately for an extension of the 30 days allowed to file respondent"s affidavits. Both of these motions were dismissed by orders of Roger R. Lafrenière, Esquire, a prothonotary of the Court. Varma proported to appeal these orders to the Federal Court of Appeal and seeks the setting in abeyance on the grounds that those two appeals are pending. An appeal can only be pending if it is properly brought in the first place. There is no automatic right of appeal. The only right to appeal must be found in a statute or rules or regulations made pursuant to a statute. No such authority for either of these appeals was cited to me and I know of nothing which authorizes an appeal from the decision of a prothonotary directly to the Court of Appeal. I find therefore that there is no foundation for the motion for setting in abeyance. If I am wrong in so finding, I note that section 49 of the Federal Court Act specifically provides that all matters before the Court will be determined without a jury and that such a provision removes any possibility of the Court of the Appeal granting a jury trial and a stay under section 50 should not be ordered in such circumstances. With regards to the proported appeal of the order dismissing the motion for an extension of time, I note that no grounds are alleged and supported with evidence which could meet the test for such a stay. And for that reason there is no possibility that a stay under section 50 or setting in abeyance should be ordered because of that proported appeal.
[3] The alternative relief sought is that seven days be set aside for the hearing. I note that Post in its requisition suggested three hours. The time to be allocated for a hearing is not the proper subject of a motion. The Associate Chief Justice"s Office assigns judges and prothonotaries to hearings and fixes the timetables of those persons. If a person hearing a matter believes more time is required than has initially been allocated by the Associate Chief Justice"s Judicial Administrator, that person will seek additional time. Therefore, that part of the motion seeking an order setting a duration must be dismissed, but the Judicial Administrator will be informed of Varma"s time estimate.
ORDER
[4] For the foregoing reasons, this motion is dismissed in its entirety.
"Peter A.K. Giles"
Associate Senior Prothonotary
Toronto, Ontario
July 7, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: T-498-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADA POST CORPORATION |
Applicant
| - and - |
| ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA |
Respondent
PURSUANT TO RULE 369
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: GILES A.S.P. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999
| WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. Ian J. Roland and |
| Mr. George Avraam |
| For the Applicant |
| Aditya Narayan Varma |
| The Respondent in Person |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Gowling Strathy & Henderson
| Barristers & Solicitors |
| Commerce Court West |
| Suite 4900 |
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M5L 1J3 |
| For the Applicant |
Aditya Narayan Varma
| 275 Goldenwood Road |
| Willowdale, Ontario |
| M2M 4A7 |
The Respondent in Person
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990707
Docket: T-498-99
Between:
| CANADA POST CORPORATION |
Applicant
| - and - |
| ADITYA NARAYAN VARMA |
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
| AND ORDER |