Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Mulveney v. Canada (Human Resource Development)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2006-11-30
Neutral citation 2006 FCA 391
File numbers A-133-05

Decision Content

Date: 20061130

Docket: A-133-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 391

 

CORAM:       LINDEN J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

                        MALONE J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

MARYANN MULVENEY

 

Appellant

and

 

 

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

 

    Respondent

 

 

 

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 29, 2006.

Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on November 30, 2006.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                  LINDEN J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                     EVANS J.A.

                                                                                                                          MALONE J.A.

Date: 20061130

Docket: A-133-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 391

 

CORAM:       LINDEN J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

                        MALONE J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

MARYANN MULVENEY

 

Appellant

and

 

 

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

 

    Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 

LINDEN J.A.

[1]               This is an appeal from a decision by the Motions Judge refusing an extension of time to file a Notice of Application for Judicial Review of a decision of the Minister that there was no administrative error in this case.

 

[2]               The Motions Judge deciding on the written material only based his decision on the sole ground of the absence of a sufficient explanation for the delay, one of the four elements to be met to obtain an extension.

[3]               Given the unusual circumstances of this case and given the more fulsome explanation offered to this Court, we are satisfied that an “obvious injustice” would result if we did not allow an extension of time to file a Notice of Application for Judicial Review in this matter (see Mayne Pharma (Canada) Inc. v. Aventis Pharma Inc., [2005] F.C.A. 50) .

 

[4]               The Court suggests that the parties, in view of the circumstances, consider compromise in this case.

 

[5]               The appeal will be allowed. The order dated March 14, 2005 is set aside and the time to file the Notice of Application will be extended to January 31, 2007.

 

“A. M. Linden”

J.A.

 

“I agree                        John M. Evans”           

                                            J.A.

 

“I agree                        B. Malone”                  

                                           J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-133-05

 

APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIBSON DATED MARCH 14, 2005, DOCKET NO. 05-T-14

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              Maryann Mulveney

                                                                                                v. Minister of Human Resource Development Canada

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          November 29, 2006

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:                                           LINDEN J.A.

 

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                         EVANS J.A.

                                                                                                MALONE J.A.

 

DATED:                                                                                 November 30, 2006

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Maryann Mulveney

 

FOR THE APPELLANT

(self-represented)

 

Jacques-Michel Cyr

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Maryann Mulveney

Toronto, Ontario

 

 

 

FOR THE APPELLANT

(self-represented)

 

John H. Sims Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

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.