BETWEEN:
and
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 12, 2007.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Docket: A-576-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 149
Present: SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
KIM GEORGE CORBETT
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] The applicant has commenced an application for judicial review of the decision of an Umpire under the Employment Insurance Act. That application is ready to be set down for hearing. When the requisition for hearing was filed, the applicant filed a notice of motion to seek certain records. The respondent opposes the motion.
[2] The applicant is seeking certain documents from the Employment Insurance Commission and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, as well as the decision of the Board of Referees in his case, and “written representations and recorded documentary evidence” provided (I assume to the Board of Referees). The respondent relies on Rules 317 and 318 of the Federal Courts Rules, as well as the Access to Information Act.
[3] Rule 317 and 318 apply only to documents in the possession of the “tribunal” whose decision is the subject of the application for judicial review. In this case, the tribunal is the Umpire whose decision is the subject of the application for judicial review. It appears from the material in the court file that all of the documents that were in the possession of the Umpire have been provided, and now appear either in the applicant’s record filed November 24, 2006, or the respondent’s record filed February 13, 2007. In an application for judicial review of the decision of an Umpire, Rules 317 and 318 cannot be used to obtain documents in the possession of the Review Tribunal, the Employment Insurance Commission, or Human Resources and Skill Development Canada.
[4] The applicant’s motion cannot succeed on the basis of the Access to Information Act. It appears that the applicant has made an application for documents under the Access to Information Act. It is not clear what if anything he received in response to that request, but if he is not satisfied with the response, his remedy is to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner under the Access to Information Act. Such documents as he may have obtained or may obtain in future under the Access to Information Act would not be admissible in this application unless they were part of the record before the Umpire (in which case they are probably already in the record of this case; see the previous paragraph), or the applicant seeks leave to present evidence that was not before the Umpire, which he has not done.
[5] Even if there were a legal foundation for this motion, I must note that it is not possible to discern from the material submitted by the applicant why the requested documents are or might be relevant to his application for judicial review.
[6] For these reasons, the applicant’s motion will be dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-576-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: KIM GEORGE CORBETT v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|