Bellefeuille v. Canada ( Human Rights Commission )
T-1380-92
Reed J.
25/2/93
6 pp.
Motion to extend time to file application record pursuant to R. 1606-Notice of motion and affidavits in support seeking judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Commission decision filed June 12, 1992-Time period to file application record expired August 12, 1992-On November 3, Registry notifying applicant of expiry of time limit and inviting him to file application record within 10 days-File forwarded to Joyal J. on December 7, same day application record filed-Court requiring applicant to file affidavit explaining four-month delay-By way of explanation affidavit stating office of Sudbury Community Legal Clinic overworked, understaffed; referring to counsel's vacation; internal office situation requiring counsel to assume responsibility for more files-Teitelbaum J. holding explanation insufficient-Respondent arguing matter res judicata since issue already decided by Teitelbaum J.-Material now before Court identical to that before Teitelbaum J.-Arguing Registry simply forgetting to issue order dismissing application for judicial review on Court's own motion pursuant to R. 1617-Motion denied and application for judicial review dismissed-Reasonable explanation for delay not provided-Four-month delay neither mere administrative slip nor minor compliance with Rules-Even after notification 10 days to respond or have application struck, another month elapsed before attempted to file application record-Matter not res judicata as result of Teitelbaum J.'s directions to Registry-Merely advising Registry as to response on late filing of application record-Registry since instructed not to accept for filing documents not filed within required time period under 1600 Rules-Appropriate procedure to submit out-of-time document with motion to Court requesting extension of time within which to file-Motion should set out information demonstrating: (1) continuing intention to pursue appeal; (2) some merit in application; (3) no prejudice arising to respondent as result of delay; (4) reasonable explanation for delay-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 1606 (as enacted by SOR/92-43, s. 19), 1617 (as enacted idem).