Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20060317

Docket: A-55-06

Citation: 2006 FCA 115

Present:           SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

KAREN DEEVY

Appeal CP 23729

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Respondent

Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 17, 2006.

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                      SEXTON J.A.

Date: 20060317

Docket: A-55-06

Citation: 2006 FCA 115

Present:           SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

KAREN DEEVY

Appeal CP 23729

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

SEXTON J.A.

[1]                The applicant in the underlying judicial review proceeding makes two motions. The first is for leave to provide additional documents and supporting pharmacological evidence. The applicant secondly seeks an order that Sandra L. Fraser ("Fraser"), a registered nurse and non-lawyer, be permitted to represent her in the judicial review application. That application is said to be in respect of a January 9, 2006, decision by the Pension Appeals Board (the "Board").

[2]                According to the applicant, the special circumstances justifying the second order are Fraser's knowledge of medications and their various side effects. This alone is insufficient to warrant granting the order requested. Further, the applicant relies upon rules 115 and 121 of the Federal Courts Rules. Neither rule has any application to the present case. Rule 115 deals with court appointments of representatives for unborn or unascertained persons or persons under a legal disability. There is no evidence filed that would establish that the applicant fulfills the conditions. Rule 121 covers parties who are under some legal disability and parties who act or seek to act in a representative capacity, including in a class action. There is also no evidence that the applicant qualifies under this rule.

[3]                In Erdmann v. Canada, 2001 FCA 138, this Court recognized that it may have the inherent jurisdiction required to permit representation by a non-lawyer, if the interests of justice so require. However, it went on to say that the non-lawyer who sought to represent the party before it in that case did not appreciate the nature of judicial review or the procedures that ought to be followed. The same can be said of Fraser. For example, the notice of application prepared by Fraser purports to seek judicial review of a Board decision of January 9, 2006. The file reveals no decision made on that date. There is also nothing in the court record before the Court to indicate what that decision said, if indeed there was such a decision. The only decisions of the Board that appear in the material are those of November 4, 2005 and November 3, 2004.

[4]                Secondly, the applicant seeks to introduce material that was apparently not filed before the Board with no legal basis whatsoever being laid for the introduction of this new evidence before this Court.

[5]                Thirdly, the applicant's record, tendered by Fraser, does not comply with rule 309. The record does not contain the order in respect of which the application is made. Paragraph 309(2)(c). The file also does not contain the applicant's memorandum of fact and law. Paragraph 309(2)(h). The documents that are contained in the record do not appear on consecutively numbered pages. Subsection 309(2). They are also not filed in the order set out in Subsection 309(2).

[6]                Fourthly, the applicant's motion material is not in compliance with rule 364. For instance, the motion record does not appear to contain a table of contents. Paragraph 364(2)(a). Furthermore, the documents that are included in the record do not appear on consecutively numbered pages. Subsection 364(2). Moreover, because the pages are not bound, they do not seem to be arranged in any order whatsoever, contrary to subsection 364(2).

[7]                For all of the above reasons, both of the motions are dismissed.

"J. Edgar Sexton"

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                               A-55-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                               Karen Deevy v. The Minister of Social Development

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                              SEXTON J.A.

DATED:                                                                                  MARCH 17, 2006

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

Karen Deevy Sandra L. Fraser	FOR THE APPLICANT
Allan Matte	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Cornwall, Ontario Disability Advocate SanDouglas Health Care & Associates Inc. Ottawa, Ontario	FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario	FOR THE RESPONDENT