Date: 20010928
Docket: T-1854-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1069
Ottawa, Ontario, the 28th day of September, 2001
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
BETWEEN:
DANIEL LÉVESQUE
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(Correctional Service of Canada)
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PELLETIER J.
[1] On September 15, 2000, the applicant, an inmate in the Donnacona Institution, was convicted of an offence following his refusal to supply a urine sample. On October 6, 2000, he filed his application for judicial review. On October 11, the respondent filed its Notice of Appearance. The applicant was to file his affidavit in support of his application within 30 days of the date of his application. The applicant did not manage to comply with this obligation but on November 17 he filed his affidavit accompanied by the respondent's consent to filing out of time.
[2] Following these events, the record does not indicate any activity by the applicant or the respondent. Consequently, a notice of status review was issued on June 19, 2001 in which the applicant was required to justify why his application should not be dismissed for delay.
[3] The applicant did not respond to the notice of status review. The respondent took the opportunity to file with the Court its written representations in which it alleges that the applicant is not responsible for the delays in the case since it is the respondent that did not file its affidavit within the time provided by the Rules. The respondent argues that in such circumstances the application for judicial review should not be dismissed.
[4] The respondent also filed a motion to extend the time for filing its affidavits in reply. In support of this motion, the respondent filed the affidavit of Martin Lamontagne, sworn on January 5, 2001, according to which the respondent is in a position to file its affidavit in reply. In fact, in the same appendix there is the affidavit of Pierre Paquet, a Correctional Service of Canada officer. This affidavit was also sworn on January 5, 2001. The record on the motion for extension of time also contains the consent of Ms. Claudine Bouchard, the applicant's counsel, to the filing of the respondent's affidavits in reply out of time. This document was apparently signed on June 14, 2001.
[5] Let us summarize, then. The applicant did not take the trouble to justify why his application should not be dismissed for delay. Is he, perhaps, relying on the respondent, who accepts full responsibility for the delay which, it says, results from the fact that it did not file its affidavits in reply? A profound silence reigns as to the failure of the applicant to either file his record or to require the respondent to file its affidavits in reply.
[6] The respondent tried to bring things up to date by filing its motion for leave to file its out-of-time affidavits in reply. This motion, signed by the respondent's counsel on January 5, 2001, was not filed until July 26. The affidavit of the Correctional Service's official was sworn on January 5, 2001. This delay remains without explanation.
[7] Indeed, what distinguishes this case is precisely the lack of explanations. The applicant does not explain why he has not carried through on his judicial review application. The respondent does not explain why it did not file until July 26, 2001 a motion for extension of time that has been ready since January 5, 2001. But each is prepared to consent to the other's delays being excused.
[8] This lack of explanation suggests that neither of the parties assigns much value to the application for judicial review. I would have a hard time convincing myself that I should assign it greater value than the parties do. Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time is dismissed and the application for judicial review is dismissed for delay.
ORDER
For the reasons cited above, the motion for an extension of time is dismissed and the application for judicial review is dismissed for delay.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
J.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-1854-00
STYLE: Daniel Lévesque v. Attorney General of Canada
CASE DEALT WITH IN WRITING
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
DATED: September 28, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Claudine Bouchard FOR THE APPLICANT
Sébastien Gagné FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Claudine Bouchard FOR THE APPLICANT
Québec, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario