Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Winnicki v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2007-01-04
Neutral citation 2007 FCA 3
File numbers A-334-06

Decision Content

Date: 20070104

Docket: A-334-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 3

 

Present:          NOËL J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

TOMASZ WINNICKI

Appellant

(Responding Party)

 

and

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondent

(Moving Party)

 

 

 

Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

 

Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 4, 2007.

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                                                                         NOËL J.A.

 

Date: 20070104

Docket: A-334-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 3

 

Present:          NOËL J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

TOMASZ WINNICKI

Appellant

(Responding Party)

 

and

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondent

(Moving Party)

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

NOËL J.A.

[1]               I am seized with an ancillary motion to shorten the time within which the responding party must respond to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s (the Commission) application to set aside the interim stay of the contempt order issued by von Finckenstein J. on July 12, 2006 and the imprisonment thereby ordered.  Specifically, the Commission requests that contrary to what the Rules provide, account be taken of the Christmas holidays in computing this delay.

 

[2]               The Commission brings this motion so that its application to set aside the stay can be heard (and presumably disposed of) before January 16, 2007, that is the day on which the appeal from von Finckenstein J.’s contempt order, and in particular from the prison sentence which he imposed, is to be heard by this Court (see motion material, written representations, para. 33).

 

[3]               Based on the record before me, the Commission has been in a position to proceed with its application since November 24, 2006, the day of the alleged breach of the order staying the contempt order.  For reasons that are unexplained, the application was not brought until December 22, 2006.  The Commission’s desire to expedite the application only arises because it failed to present the application earlier.

 

[4]               In the circumstances and given the significance of the decision sought from the perspective of the responding party, the Court is not inclined to modify the delays prescribed by the Rule.

 

[5]               Motion denied.

 

 

“Marc Noël”

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-334-06

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              TOMASZ WINNICKI and

                                                                                                CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

 

 

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                             NOËL J.A.

 

DATED:                                                                                 JANUARY 4, 2007

 

 

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

 

 

James Foord

FOR  THE APPELLANT

 

Judith Parisien & Joy Noonan

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

FOORD, MURRAY

Ottawa (Ontario)

 

FOR  THE APPELLANT

 

HEENAN BLAIKIE LLP

Ottawa (Ontario)

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.