Date: 20010125
Docket: T-284-00
BETWEEN:
MATHEW HILL, on his own behalf,
and on behalf of all other members of the KITKATLA BAND
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
AND THE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
COORDINATOR - PRINCE RUPERT
Respondents
- and -
B.C. FISHERIES SURVIVAL COALITION AND SEAFOOD
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.
Intervenors
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for an order to set aside or alternatively to reconsider the order of this Court of December 19, 2000 allowing this judicial review application to continue.
[2] The Court issued a notice of status review on November 1, 2000, requiring the applicant to show cause why this application should not be dismissed for delay and the applicant was given thirty days to serve and file his written submissions.
[3] The Registry faxed the notice of status review to the respondents and the intervenors to the wrong fax numbers. In consequence, the Registry failed to serve legally either the respondents or the intervenors with the notice of status review.
[4] The applicant served and filed his written submissions on
December 1st, 2000.
[5] This Court ordered on December 19, 2000 that the within judicial review application should continue.
[6] The Registry again failed to fax the order of the Court dated December 19, 2000 to the respondents' counsel.
[7] The respondents' counsel first learned of the Court's decision on December 21, 2000. The written submissions in respect to the status review of the respondents, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fisheries Management Co-ordinator - Prince Rupert, were served upon the applicant and the intervenors, on December 21, 2000 and were received by the Federal Court on December 21, 2000.
[8] I have carefully reviewed the written representations by all parties.
[9] Rules 397 and 399 read:
| 397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that (a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or (b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. Mistakes 397(2) (2) Clerical mistakes, errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court.
|
| 397. (1) Dans les 10 jours après qu'une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l'ordonnance, telle qu'elle était constituée à ce moment, d'en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l'une ou l'autre des raisons suivantes : a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier; b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement. Erreurs 397(2) (2) Les fautes de transcription, les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être corrigées à tout moment par la Cour. |
399. (1) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order that was made a) ex parte; or (b) in the absence of a party who failed to appear by accident or mistake or by reason of insufficient notice of the proceeding, if the party against whom the order is made discloses a prima facie case why the order should not have been made. Setting aside or variance 399(2) (2) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order (a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order; or (b) where the order was obtained by fraud. Effect of order 399(3) (3) Unless the Court orders otherwise, the setting aside or variance of an order under subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity or character of anything done or not done before the order was set aside or varied. |
| 399. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier l'une des ordonnances suivantes, si la partie contre laquelle elle a été rendue présente une preuve prima facie démontrant pourquoi elle n'aurait pas dû être rendue : a) toute ordonnance rendue sur requête ex parte; b) toute ordonnance rendue en l'absence d'une partie qui n'a pas comparu par suite d'un événement fortuit ou d'une erreur ou à cause d'un avis insuffisant de l'instance. Annulation 399(2) (2) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier une ordonnance dans l'un ou l'autre des cas suivants : a) des faits nouveaux sont survenus ou ont été découverts après que l'ordonnance a été rendue; b) l'ordonnance a été obtenue par fraude. Effet de l'ordonnance 399(3) (3) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, l'annulation ou la modification d'une ordonnance en vertu des paragraphes (1) ou (2) ne porte pas atteinte à la validité ou à la nature des actes ou omissions antérieurs à cette annulation ou modification. |
[10] In my view, the situation meets the parameters of Rules 399(1)(b) and and 399(2)(a).
[11] The Court made a decision on December 19, 2000 based on the written representations made by the applicant.
[12] The respondents and the intervenors were also allowed to present written submissions even though the onus is on the applicant to show cause why the application should not be dismissed for delay pursuant to Rule 382(2).
[13] Therefore, the respondents and the intervenors are allowed to present their written submissions why the application should be dismissed for delay.
[14] The application was filed on February 15, 2000.
[15] On March 15 and 16, 2000, the applicant brought an interlocutory injunction application before the Federal Court.
[16] The Federal Court rendered a decision on the interlocutory injunction application on March 17, 2000. Mr. Justice MacKay dismissed the applicant's interlocutory injunction application.
[17] On March 27, 2000 the applicant appealed Mr. Justice MacKay's decision to dismiss the interlocutory injunction application.
[18] On July 27, 2000, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal as being moot.
[19] On January 2, 2001, following the Court's decision dated December 19, 2000, the applicant filed its motion record.
[20] Pursuant to the notice of application filed on February 15, 2000, there is a request under Rule 317(2) for the respondent, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to send a certified copy of the record regarding the decision of the Minister to approve the Integrated Fisheries Management Roe Herring 2000 Plan in so far as it authorizes the harvest of herring roe in Kitkatla Inlet in 2000, to the applicant and the Registry.
[21] In fact, the applicant has demonstrated its intention to pursue the main application given that it pursued the application for an injunction before the Federal Court of Appeal and the decision was rendered on July 27, 2000.
[22] I consider that the reasons given for the delay are reasonable in the circumstances and the decision of December 19, 2000 is maintained in part and this application shall continue.
[23] Therefore, the order is varied and pursuant to Rule 382(2)(c), the Court is satisfied that the proceedings should continue as a specially managed proceeding and the schedule established pursuant to the order of December 19, 2000 is cancelled. The parties shall submit to the case management judge a proposed schedule to move the case forward at the first opportunity.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 25, 2000