PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Status Review |
Kalevar v. Liberal Party of Canada
T-472-00
2001 FCT 1261, Lemieux J.
15/11/01
10 pp.
Appeal from Giles A.S.P.'s order dismissing application for judicial review (of CHRC decision not to deal with applicant's complaint respondent Liberal Party of Canada had discriminated against him on grounds of race and religion when it failed to disqualify candidate for 1997 elections) for delay under Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 382 consequent upon issuance of notice of status review identifying 180 days had elapsed since filing of notice of application and no requisition for hearing date had been filed--Judicial review application has progressed with great difficulty as applicant lay litigant-- Appeal dismissed--Applicant justifying delay in appealing A.S.P.'s order by saying procedurally confused as to which Court to appeal to, as well as his absence from Canada-- A.S.P. found that even after return to Canada, applicant did nothing, not even updating himself on state of file-- Application of principles established in Bellefeuille v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) (1994), 172 N.R. 401 (F.C.A.) as to what applicant must show in order to obtain extension of time: whether continuing intention to pursue appeal; whether some merit in appeal; whether material prejudice to other party; whether reasonable explanation for delay--In Baroud v. Canada (1998), 160 F.T.R. 91 (T.D.), Hugessen J. wrote Court needs to be concerned primarily with reasons why case has not moved forward faster and do they justify delay; what steps plaintiff proposing to move matter forward--Baroud recently endorsed by F.C.A. in Ferrostaal Metals Ltd. v. Evdomon Corp., [2001] F.C.T. No. 1552 (QL) --Individual representing himself must follow rules and not allowed to play rules so as to prejudice other parties: Gilling v. Canada, [1998] F.C.J. No. 952 (T.D.) (QL)--Federal Court Rules apply equally to cases where lay litigant present or in one where legal counsel retained; Federal Court Rules do not vary because lay litigant chooses to represent his claim--Applicant has not adequately explained delay in appealing order-- Furthermore, applicant has not persuaded Court appeal having some merit--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 382.