Date: 20050818
Docket: A-544-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 276
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
DENNIS NOWOSELSKY
Appellant
and
CANADA (CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 18, 2005.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20050818
Docket: A-544-04
Citation: 2005 FCA 276
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
DENNIS NOWOSELSKY
Appellant
and
CANADA (CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to be removed as a respondent in this appeal. That motion cannot succeed, for the reasons explained below.
[2] In 2002, Mr. Dennis Nowoselsky made a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, against his employer, Correctional Services of Canada. His complaint was dismissed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in July of 2003. On August 28, 2003, Mr. Nowoselsky commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission's decision.
[3] Mr. Nowoselsky named the Commission as the only respondent to his application for judicial review. That was clearly incorrect. By virtue of Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, an application for judicial review filed in the Federal Court or in the Federal Court of Appeal must not name the party whose decision is the subject of the application unless required by the statute under which the application is brought. Rule 303 reads as follows (my emphasis):
|
303. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an applicant shall name as a respondent every person |
303. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le demandeur désigne à titre de défendeur : |
|
(a) directly affected by the order sought in the application, other than a tribunal in respect of which the application is brought; or |
a) toute personne directement touchée par l'ordonnance recherchée, autre que l'office fédéral visé par la demande; |
|
(b) required to be named as a party under an Act of Parliament pursuant to which the application is brought. |
b) toute autre personne qui doit être désignée à titre de partie aux termes de la loi fédérale ou de ses textes d'application qui prévoient ou autorisent la présentation de la demande. |
|
(2) Where in an application for judicial review there are no persons that can be named under subsection (1), the applicant shall name the Attorney General of Canada as a respondent. |
(2) Dans une demande de contrôle judiciaire, si aucun défendeur n'est désigné en application du paragraphe (1), le demandeur désigne le procureur général du Canada à ce titre. |
|
(3) On a motion by the Attorney General of Canada, where the Court is satisfied that the Attorney General is unable or unwilling to act as a respondent after having been named under subsection (2), the Court may substitute another person or body, including the tribunal in respect of which the application is made, as a respondent in the place of the Attorney General of Canada. |
(3) La Cour peut, sur requête du procureur général du Canada, si elle est convaincue que celui-ci est incapable d'agir à titre de défendeur ou n'est pas disposé à le faire après avoir été ainsi désigné conformément au paragraphe (2), désigner en remplacement une autre personne ou entité, y compris l'office fédéral visé par la demande. |
[4] I assume that in Mr. Nowoselsky's application for judicial review, he was seeking an order setting aside the decision of the Commission. It seems to me that Correctional Services of Canada would have been directly affected by that order, if it had been obtained. It would follow that Mr. Nowoselsky should have named Correctional Services of Canada as a respondent in his application for judicial review. He should not have named the Commission.
[5] The application for judicial review was the subject of a notice of status review on March 30, 2004. The application was allowed to continue as a specially managed proceeding, but Mr. Nowoselsky was informed that the onus was on him to take steps to rectify the error in the style of cause and to seek an extension of time to file supporting affidavits.
[6] Mr. Nowoselsky then filed a notice of motion seeking an order to amend the style of cause, and to obtain an extension of time to file his affidavits. The Prothonotary who dealt with that motion refused to grant the extension of time, and declined to make an order in relation to the style of cause, because she considered it to be moot. Mr. Nowoselsky appealed the Prothonotary's order to a Judge of the Federal Court. That appeal was dismissed on September 30, 2004.
[7] On October 6, 2004, Mr. Nowoselsky appealed the Judge's order, again naming the Commission as the only respondent. The Commission, relying on Rule 303, now seeks an order removing it as a respondent.
[8] The naming of respondents in an appeal is not governed by Rule 303, but by Rule 338, which reads as follows:
|
338. (1) Unless the Court orders otherwise, an appellant shall include as a respondent in an appeal |
338. (1) Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, l'appelant désigne les personnes suivantes à titre d'intimés dans l'appel : |
|
(a) every party in the first instance who is adverse in interest to the appellant in the appeal; |
a) toute personne qui était une partie dans la première instance et qui a dans l'appel des intérêts opposés aux siens; |
|
(b) any other person required to be named as a party by an Act of Parliament pursuant to which the appeal is brought; and |
b) toute autre personne qui doit être désignée à titre de partie aux termes de la loi fédérale qui autorise l'appel; |
|
(c) where there are no persons that are included under paragraph (a) or (b), the Attorney General of Canada. |
c) si les alinéas a) et b) ne s'appliquent pas, le procureur général du Canada. |
|
(2) On a motion by the Attorney General of Canada, where the Court is satisfied that the Attorney General is unable or unwilling to act as a respondent in an appeal, the Court may substitute another person or body, including a tribunal whose order is being appealed, as a respondent in the place of the Attorney General of Canada. |
(2) La Cour peut, sur requête du procureur général du Canada, si elle est convaincue que celui-ci est incapable d'agir à titre d'intimé ou n'est pas disposé à le faire, désigner en remplacement une autre personne ou entité, y compris l'office fédéral dont l'ordonnance fait l'objet de l'appel. |
[9] In my view, the Commission is, to paraphrase Rule 383(1)(a), a party that was adverse in interest to the appellant in the proceedings in the Federal Court that have led to this appeal. It is unfortunate that the Commission was erroneously named as the only respondent in the Federal Court proceedings, but that was the situation when Mr. Nowoselsky's application in the Federal Court ended. It follows that the Commission is an appropriate respondent in this appeal.
[10] The Commission's motion will be dismissed. No costs are awarded on this motion.
"K. Sharlow"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-544-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: DENNIS NOWOSELSKY and CANADA (CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
DATED: August 18, 2005
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Dennis Nowoselsky
|
ON HIS OWN BEHALF |
|
K.E. Ceilidh Snider |
FOR THE RESPONDENT CHRC |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Dennis Nowoselsky Prince Albert, B.C. |
ON HIS OWN BEHALF |
|
Canadian Human Rights Commission Ottawa, Ontario |
FOR THE RESPONDENT CHRC |