Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20010420

Docket: T-1072-98

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 360

Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of April, 2001

PRESENT:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE

BETWEEN:

CHARLOTTE HUTCHINSON

Applicant

- and -

HONOURABLE CHRISTINE STEWART

in her capacity as Minister of Environment Canada

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

O'KEEFE J.

[1]                This is a motion by the applicant pursuant to Rules 369 and 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106 for an order that my order in this matter be reconsidered by me so as to address the issue of costs.

[2]                The Canadian Human Rights Commission also made a motion to be granted leave to intervene in this motion made by the applicant.

[3]                There has been an appeal of my order by the respondent.

[4]                The motion is opposed by the respondent.

Issue

[5]                Should the applicant's motion be granted?

Analysis and Decision

[6]                As noted, my order in this matter was appealed by the respondent. The issue now becomes whether I can deal with the matter once an appeal has been filed. Madam Justice Reed in Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Smith-Roles Ltd. (1985), 4 C.P.R. (3d) 174 (F.C.T.D.) at page 175 stated:

There is, however, an additional and overriding reason for rejecting this motion: the December 6, 1984 order is under appeal. Accordingly, in my view, it would be highly improper for me to attempt to vary that order now, even should I wish to do so.

The motion will be dismissed. The defendant should have its costs of this application in any event of the cause.

As my order has been appealed, I would therefore adopt the reasoning of Madam Justice Reed and dismiss the applicant's motion which was made on the basis of Rule 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, supra.

[7]                Because of my disposition of the motion, it is not necessary to deal with the motion of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for leave to intervene in the applicant's motion.

[8]                There shall be no order as to costs of this motion.

ORDER

[9]                IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the applicant is dismissed.

[10]            AND IT IS ORDERED that there shall be no order as to costs for this motion.

                                                                               "John A. O'Keefe"                

                                                                                               J.F.C.C.                     

Ottawa, Ontario

April 20, 2001