Date: 20010827
Docket: T-1424-01
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 942
BETWEEN:
RONALD ST-DENIS
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
[1] This is a motion for an order of mandamus compelling the respondent to perform its duty to grant access to the applicant's prescribed medication.
[2] First of all, it has to be noted that the applicant is representing himself and he is not very familiar with the Federal Court Act or the Federal Court Rules.
[3] I should also mention that it is obvious that someone else, not clearly identified, has helped the applicant write this motion and, as I mentioned verbally at the hearing, this work was done by someone who is not a lawyer and some information that was given to the applicant and to other applicants in similar cases was not very helpful to him nor to the Court. Those documents were probably prepared in good faith but the preparation of those complex files needs more than good faith, and I cannot say more than state that the applicant should get help from a lawyer.
[4] I have carefully reviewed the documents provided by the applicant.
[5] He makes the request that the Court orders the respondent, the Minister of Health, to grant him an interim section 56 exemption.
[6] The applicant has provided the letter sent to the department of Health which is titled "Ultimatum".
[7] The applicant has informed the Court that he has filed a request for an exemption on Thursday, August 2, 2001 and he filed this motion on short notice on August 7, 2001.
[8] This is a real abuse of process to ask for a mandamus to force the respondent to provide an answer to a request filed on Thursday, only five days later.
[9] I have discussed this point with the applicant who is blind and has done what a friend told him to do. Obviously, it was ill-advised and premature to put this motion before the Court.
[10] In the recent decision Neron v. Canada (Attorney General) [2001] F.C.J. No. 1010, FCT 683, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum said:
I am satisfied that even if I were to have sufficient evidence before me that would enable me to grant the interim order requested, Rule 372 is meant to safeguard an applicant's right in the case of an urgency and pending disposition of proceedings.
The issue before me is not a preservation of a right. The applicant will not lose any right if I do not grant the interim order he now requests. It simply means, and I do not minimize the seriousness of his request, that the applicant would have to proceed with an application for judicial review by serving and filing such an application with supporting affidavits from himself and from his doctor or doctors, if that is his desire, and then make a request pursuant to section 18(2) of the Act, again with the necessary evidence.
[11] Therefore, I have no other option than to dismiss this motion for a mandamus.
Pierre Blais
Judge
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
August 27, 2001