Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20061208

Docket: 06-A-49

Citation: 2006 FCA 402

 

Present:          RYER J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND

OCEANS (The Minister), THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CANADA (The Attorney General)

 

APPLICANT

and

RICHARD JENNINGS, SYL MacDONALD, DONALD

JOHNSTON, ROBERT JENKINS, SEPTIMUS MacPHEE,

BRIAN MacPHEE AND ERNIE GALLANT, all of whom are

fishermen from Prince Edward Island.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties

 

 

Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 8, 2006.

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                           RYER J.A.

 


Date: 20061208

Docket: 06-A-49

Citation: 2006 FCA 402

 

Present:          RYER J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND

OCEANS (The Minister), THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CANADA (The Attorney General)

 

APPLICANT

and

RICHARD JENNINGS, SYL MacDONALD, DONALD

JOHNSTON, ROBERT JENKINS, SEPTIMUS MacPHEE,

BRIAN MacPHEE AND ERNIE GALLANT, all of whom are

fishermen from Prince Edward Island.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

 

RYER J.A.

[1]               A motion was placed before me seeking an extension of time for the filing of a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Courts Rules at paragraph 27(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Act.

[2]               Both parties agreed that the test set forth in Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly, [1999] F.C.J. No. 846 (F.C.A.) should govern the outcome of an application for an extension of time such as this one.  In that decision, McDonald J.A. stated:

The proper test is whether the applicant has demonstrated

 

1.                  a continuing intention to pursue his or her application;

2.                  that the application has some merit;

3.                  that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and

4.                  that a reasonable explanation for the delay exists.

 

 

[3]               Having reviewed the materials that were filed, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has established a reasonable explanation for the delay in the filing of the Notice of Appeal.  Accordingly, the application will be dismissed, with costs.

 

 

 

"C. Michael Ryer"

J.A.

 

 

 

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                                                                          06-A-49

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

                                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AS

REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND

OCEANS (The Minister), THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CANADA (The Attorney General)

 

APPLICANT

and

RICHARD JENNINGS, SYL MacDONALD, DONALD

JOHNSTON, ROBERT JENKINS, SEPTIMUS MacPHEE,

BRIAN MacPHEE AND ERNIE GALLANT, all of whom are

fishermen from Prince Edward Island.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

 

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                             RYER J.A.

 

DATED:                                                                                 December 8, 2006

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

 

Jessica Harris

FOR  THE APPLICANT

 

Gerald J. Lizotte, Q.C.

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa

 

FOR  THE APPLICANT

 

Godin, Lizotte, Robichaud, Guignard

Shippigan, New Brunswick

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.