PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
Plaintiff
‑and‑
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Defendant
TRANSCRIPT OF REASONS FOR ORDER
Let the attached edited version of the transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the bench at
"Luc Martineau"
Court File No: T‑2169-07
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
YURI BOIKO
Plaintiff
‑and‑
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Defendant
* * * * *
DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU
DELIVERED ORALLY FROM THE BENCH
at the Courts Administration Service,
Room 1104,
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 10:50 a.m.
* * * * *
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Yuri Boiko on his own behalf
Mr. Christopher Rootham on behalf of the Defendant
A.S.A.P. Reporting Services Inc. 8 (2008)
200
(613) 564-2727 (416) 861-8720
‑‑‑ Upon commencing the Decision of the Honourable
Mr. Justice Martineau delivered orally from the
bench on Thursday, September 11, 2008
at 10:50 a.m.
JUSTICE MARTINEAU: I will read you my decision which I am delivering orally from the bench.
The Plaintiff seeks to appeal a decision of Prothonotary Tabib, dated September 5, 2005. In essence, the Plaintiff seeks an adjournment of Defendant’s motion to strike his claim which is scheduled to be heard today by Prothonotary Aronovitch. I note that it is the second time that a request for adjournment is made and denied by the prothonotary.
I can only intervene with the discretionary decision rendered on September 5, 2008 by the prothonotary if the questions raised in the motion are vital to the final issue of the case, which is not the case with respect to an adjournment, or if the prothonotary based her decision on a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts.
In this regard, I have read the parties’ written representations and also considered their submissions orally made before me today. I have decided after due consideration to accept the arguments made by the Defendant.
I realize the challenge a self-represented litigant like the Plaintiff faces in this proceeding, but in the absence of some compelling legal error made by the prothonotary, the hearing of the Defendant’s motion to strike should proceed today as scheduled and as already announced to the Plaintiff upon the serving and filing of the Defendant’s motion to strike last July 28, 2008.
I also wish to state that a reasonable person would not come to the conclusion that the conduct or decisions made earlier by the prothonotary in this proceeding raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. While the Plaintiff may disagree with the prothonotary’s findings and conclusions, this is simply not a ground for alleging bias which is a very serious reproach.
That being said, I do not need to decide whether the prothonotary was right or wrong in qualifying the second motion for adjournment as an abuse of process. It is suffice to state that other convincing reasons not to grant an adjournment are contained in the two decisions made by the prothonotary.
In conclusion and for those reasons, I am dismissing the present motion in appeal. Moreover, in the exercise of my discretion and considering all relevant factors, there will be no costs.
My order will read as follows: Upon hearing the motion of the Plaintiff for an order to appeal the decision of Prothonotary Tabib issued on September 5, 2005 and for the reasons delivered from the bench, this Court orders that the motion in appeal be dismissed without costs.
--- Whereupon the Court concluded at 10:55 a.m.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I have, to the best
of my skills and abilities, accurately recorded
by Stenomask and transcribed therefrom, the foregoing proceeding.
Suzanne Hubbard, Stenomask Reporter