Date: 20000517
Docket: T-494-99
Ottawa, Ontario, this 17th day of May, 2000
| PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O"KEEFE |
BETWEEN:
REVEREND BROTHER WALTER A. TUCKER and
REVEREND BROTHER MICHAEL J. BALDASARO
Applicants
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
MS. LOIS E. PAYNE,
MS. TRICIA SINCLAIR,
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DUNN
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O"KEEFE J.
[1] This is a motion by Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker and Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro ("applicants") for an Order extending the time in which the applicants may issue an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal from the Order of the Honourable Madame Justice Sharlow, dated December 2, 1999. The applicants, before Madame Justice Sharlow, were appealing a Prothonotary"s Order which, in essence, held that a decision of a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was not subject to judicial review in the Federal Court. Madame Justice Sharlow upheld the ruling of the Prothonotary.
[2] The applicants received the decision of Madame Justice Sharlow and Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro set aside time in December to draft and complete the Notice of Appeal to Madame Justice Sharlow"s decision within the 30 day time limit. Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro became ill on December 26, 1999 and was unable to complete the Notice of Appeal.
[3] When Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro recovered somewhat from the flu on January 10, 2000, he read the Federal Court Rules and thought that the Christmas recess applied so as to have the time for filing the Notice of Appeal extended.
[4] He had the Notice of Appeal ready for filing on January 18, 2000 and on that date, he contacted the Registry of the Court and found out that he had to make a motion for an extension of time to file the appeal as the Christmas recess did not act so to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.
[5] The applicant, Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker stated in his affidavit, that he is a pauper and a disabled person subsisting upon a Government of Canada Old Age Pension Allowance.
Issues
| [6] 1. Should an Order be granted to extend the time for a Notice of Appeal? |
| 2. Should a binding declaration of right issue declaring the procedural framework of paragraph 27(2)(b) of the Federal Court Act unconstitutional? |
| 3. Should an Order issue reimbursing the applicants the $20.00 costs of filing this motion and directing the Registrar issue the Notice of Appeal herein, dated January 31, 2000 in the Federal Court of Appeal without cost or filing charges in forma pauperis? |
| [7] Should an Order be granted to extend the time for a Notice of Appeal? |
Appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal are governed by section 27 of the Federal Court Act which states:
| 27. (1) Appeals from Trial Division - An appeal lies to the Federal Court of Appeal from any (a) final judgment, (b) judgment on a question of law determined before trial, (c) interlocutory judgment, or (d) determination on a reference made by a federal board, commission or other tribunal or the Attorney General of Canada, of the Trial Division. (1.1) Appeals from Tax Court of Canada - An appeal lies to the Federal Court of Appeal from (a) a final judgment, (b) a judgment on a question of law determined before trial, or (c) an interlocutory judgment or order of the Tax Court of Canada, other than one in respect of which section 18, 18.29, 18.3 or 18.3001 of the Tax Court of Canada Act applies. |
| 27(1) Appels des jugements de la Section de première instance - Il peut être interjeté appel, devant la Cour d'appel fédérale, des décisions suivantes de la Section de première instance_: a) jugement définitif; b) jugement sur une question de droit rendu avant l'instruction; c) jugement interlocutoire; d) jugement sur un renvoi d'un office fédéral ou du procureur général du Canada. (1.1) Appels des jugements de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt - Sauf s'il s'agit d'une décision portant sur un appel visé aux articles 18, 18.29, 18.3 ou 18.3001 de la Loi sur la Cour canadienne de l'impôt, il peut être interjeté appel, devant la Cour d'appel fédérale, des décisions suivantes de la Cour canadienne de l'impôt_: a) jugement définitif; b) jugement sur une question de droit rendu avant l'instruction; c) jugement ou ordonnance interlocutoire. |
| [8] In particular, subsection 27(2) states the limitation periods for filing an appeal and |
| provides for the jurisdiction of the Trial Division to adjudicate requests to extend the stated limitation periods: |
| 27(2) Notice of appeal " An appeal under this section shall be brought by filing a notice of appeal in the Registry of the Court (a) in the case of an interlocutory judgment, within ten days, and (b) in any other case, within thirty days, in the calculation of which July and August shall be excluded, after the pronouncement of the judgment or determination appealed from or within such further time as the Trial Division or the Tax Court of Canada, as the case may be, may, either before or after the expiration of those ten or thirty days, as the case may be, fix or allow. 27(3) Service " All parties directly affected by an appeal under this section shall be served forthwith with a true copy of the notice of appeal and evidence of service thereof shall be filed in the Registry of the Court. 27(4) Final judgment " For the purposes of this section, a final judgment includes a judgment that determines a substantive right except as to any question to be determined by a referee pursuant to the judgment. |
| 27(2) Avis d'appel " L'appel interjeté dans le cadre du présent article est formé par le dépôt d'un avis au greffe de la Cour, dans le délai imparti à compter du prononcé du jugement en cause ou dans le délai supplémentaire que la Section de première instance ou la Cour canadienne de l'impôt, selon le cas, peut, soit avant soit après l'expiration de celui-ci, fixer ou accorder. Le délai imparti est de_: a) dix jours, dans le cas d'un jugement interlocutoire; b) trente jours, compte non tenu de juillet et août, dans le cas des autres jugements. 27(3) Signification " L'appel est signifié sans délai à toutes les parties directement concernées par une copie certifiée conforme de l'avis. La preuve de la signification doit être déposée au greffe de la Cour. 27(4) Jugement définitif " Pour l'application du présent article, est assimilé au jugement définitif le jugement qui statue au fond sur un droit, à l'exception des questions renvoyées à l'arbitrage par le jugement. |
| [9] To put the matter in perspective, reference should also be made to Rule 2 (Federal |
| Court Rules, 1998): |
| "Christmas recess" means the period beginning on December 21 in a year and ending on January 7 in the following year. |
"_vacances judiciaires de Noël_" La période commençant le 21 décembre et se terminant le 7 janvier suivant. |
| and to Rule 6(3) of the Federal Court Rules, supra: |
| 6(3) Unless otherwise directed by the Court, a day that falls within the Christmas recess shall not be included in the computation of time under these Rules for filing, amending or serving a document. |
6(3) Sauf directives contraires de la Cour, les vacances judiciaires de Noël n'entrent pas dans le calcul des délais applicables selon les présentes règles au dépôt, à la modification ou à la signification d'un document. |
| [10] The applicants had believed that the time period contained in the Christmas recess |
| would not count as time in which to file their appeal. However, it has now been settled by this Court that days falling within the Christmas recess period are only excluded when computing time for taking steps under the Rules and not under the Federal Court Act where the time for filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal is set out. Thus, the necessity for the applicants" application to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal. |
| [11] The Courts have consistently held that before an extension of time in which to file |
| an appeal can be granted, certain conditions must be satisfied. These principles were succinctly summarized in Sim v. Canada, (February 27, 1996), Docket T-664-95 by Prothonotary Hargrave at page 3 of the judgment: |
- . Whether the appeal itself has merit; there must be arguable issues to put before the Court of Appeal;
- 2. The special circumstances showing or explaining why the appeal was not brought within the required time;
- 3. The intention of the Plaintiff to appeal existed before the time for appeal ran out;
- 4. Whether the delay has been excessive;
- 5. Whether the Crown will be prejudiced by an extension of time within which to appeal; and
- 6. Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the time extension [See Note 2 below].
- Note 2: These factors were used by Madame Justice Simpson in Karon Resources v. MNR (1993) 71 F.T.R. 232.
Merit
| [12] I have reviewed the decision of Sharlow J. which the applicants are appealing and |
in particular, Madame Justice Sharlow"s words at page 2 of her decision:
The only way to challenge a decision of a judge of the superior court of a province is to appeal to the appeal court of the province. The Federal Court Act does not give this Court the power to review such decisions, even on constitutional grounds.
| [13] In ground 2 of their Notice of Appeal, the applicants stated: |
By not recognizing the Plaintiff"s right to a hearing under Section 24.(1) of the Charter the Learned Justice erred in fact and law by dismissing the Action which constitutes a direct infringement, violation and denial of the Provisions of Section 24.(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principles of fundamental natural justice.
It is my opinion that this ground does not give rise to an arguable issue so as to justify the granting of an extension of time in which to file an appeal. There is a court to hear the appeal of the decisions of the Justices of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) and that is the appropriate Ontario Appellate Court and not the Federal Court of Canada.
| [14] Ground 3 of the applicants" Notice of Appeal alleged that Madame Justice |
Sharlow"s decision "brings the administration of justice into disrepute and is a violation, infringement and denial of the provisions of Sections 1., 7., 15.(1), 24.(1), 52.(1) and others of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a denial of the principles of fundamental justice." I am of the opinion that the decision of Madame Justice Sharlow does no such thing and further, I am of the opinion that this ground of appeal does not raise an arguable issue.
| [15] The applicants have also asked in their Notice of Appeal for a binding declaration |
of right declaring:
" . . . the Federal Court Act unconstitutional and void for vagueness as it fails to provide a way for proceedings against Federal Judges of the Provincial Court pursuant to the rights under subsection 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
I have reviewed the applicable law and I find no merit to the argument that the Federal Court Act, supra, is void for vagueness.
| [16] Thus, having found as above, I am of the opinion that the applicants have not |
shown that the appeal raises arguable issues for the Court of Appeal.
| [17] As to factors 2, 3, 4 and 5 listed by Prothonotary Hargrave, I find that the |
applicants have satisfied these factors.
| [18] In relation to factor 6, I do not believe that it would be in the interests of justice to |
grant the extension of time for filing the appeal as the applicants have not established that they have an arguable case on the merits and hence, it would not be in the interests of justice to take away the respondents" appeal limitation period.
| [19] One further matter that needs to be addressed is the applicants" claim in this |
application for a "binding declaration of right declaring the procedural framework of paragraph 27(2)(b) of the Federal Court Act unconstitutional". Subsection 57(1) of the Federal Court Act requires:
| 57. (1) Where the constitutional validity, applicability or operability of an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of any province, or of regulations thereunder, is in question before the Court or a federal board, commission or other tribunal, other than a service tribunal within the meaning of the National Defence Act, the Act or regulation shall not be adjudged to be invalid, inapplicable or inoperable unless notice has been served on the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of each province in accordance with subsection (2). |
57. (1) Les lois fédérales ou provinciales ou leurs textes d'application, dont la validité, l'applicabilité ou l'effet, sur le plan constitutionnel, est en cause devant la Cour ou un office fédéral, sauf s'il s'agit d'un tribunal militaire au sens de la Loi sur la défense nationale, ne peuvent être déclarés invalides, inapplicables ou sans effet, à moins que le procureur général du Canada et ceux des provinces n'aient été avisés conformément au paragraphe (2). |
| [20] As there is no indication before me that any such notices have been served on |
the Attorneys General of Canada or any Provinces, I am of the opinion that this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine this part of the motion. (See Constantineau v. Canada (A.G.) (April 27, 1998), Docket A-207-97. The notice is to be in Form 69.
| [21] The applicants" motion also requests an Order: |
". . . reimbursing the plaintiffs the $20.00 costs of filing this motion and directing the Registrar issue the Notice of Appeal herein, dated January 31st, 2000 in the Federal Court of Appeal without cost or filing charges in forma pauperis."
| [22] I am not prepared to order that the $20.00 costs of filing the motion be |
reimbursed.
| [23] With respect to ordering the Notice of Appeal to be filed in the Federal Court of |
Appeal without cost or filing charges, I do not have authority to make orders relating to the Federal Court of Appeal.
| [24] As the applicants" application does not meet all of the requirements for granting |
the extension of time, the application for an extension is dismissed.
ORDER
| [25] For the reasons given above, the motion is dismissed. |
| [26] There shall be no order as to costs. |
"John A. O"Keefe"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
May 17, 2000