Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content






Date: 20000803


Docket: T-548-00



BETWEEN:


EGLON GORDON

Applicant


-and-



THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND

CANPAR TRANSPORT LTD.

Respondents


     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

GILES A.S.P.


[1]      The motion before me is for an extension of time within which to file the Applicant"s affidavits. The Applicant who filed the original application personally states his lawyer left the country and also that his lawyer will not continue if unpaid. He had no lawyer of record. He still has no lawyer of record. He is entitled to proceed without a lawyer, but must do so in accordance with the Rules .

[2]      The original application herein shows the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC"), the Attorney General of Canada ("AG") and Canpar Transport Ltd. ("Canpar") as Respondents. Although served, Canpar has not opposed an extension of time. Nor has CHRC. However, the AG has opposed the motion and points out that neither CHRC nor the AG are proper parties. The AG also opposes the motion on the merits. Submitting that all the delay has not been excused and that no arguable case has been shown.

[3]      I agree that CHRC and the AG are not proper parties and I am not prepared to extend time until an arguable case has been shown to exist against all Respondents. In reply the Applicant indicates that if the Court finds the AG and CHRC should not have been made parties, he would agree to their removal. This Court will only remove parties on motion. If the Applicant moves to remove any of the Respondents, he should consider suggesting a fixed amount for costs under Rule 402 rather than incurring the further costs of an assessment.


ORDER

[4]      This motion is dismissed without prejudice to the Applicant"s right to reapply within 40 days should he be so advised.

                                 "Peter A. K. Giles"

     A.S.P.

Toronto, Ontario

August 3, 2000


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                         Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                                                

COURT NO:                          T-548-00
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      EGLON GORDON

            

                             - and -
                             THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND

                             CANPAR TRANSPORT LTD.

CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                      GILES A.S.P.
DATED:                          THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:              Eglon Gordon

                                 For the Applicant, on his own behalf

                             Lara Speirs

                                 For the Respondents


SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Eglon Gordon

                             567 Oakwood Avenue

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M6E 2X6

                            

                                 For the Applicant, on his own behalf

                            

                             Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondents

                                

                                        

                                

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 20000803

                        

          Docket: T-548-00

                             Between:

                             EGLON GORDON

            

                             - and -

                             THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND

                             CANPAR TRANSPORT LTD.

                            

        

                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                             AND ORDER

                            

    

    

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.