Sarrazin v. Aéroports de Montréal

Sarrazin v. Aéroports de Montréal Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-05-08 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 170 File numbers A-393-05 Decision Content Date: 20060508 Docket: A-393-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 170 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: ÉRIC SARRAZIN 7470, rue Denis-Jamet, app. 3 Montréal (Québec) H1E 6V5 Appellant and AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL (ADM) 1100, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, bureau 2100 Montréal (Québec) H3B 4X8 Respondent Written motion decided without appearance by the parties. Order made at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 8, 2006. REASONS FOR ORDER: PELLETIER J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. Date: 20060508 Docket: A-393-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 170 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: ÉRIC SARRAZIN 7470, rue Denis-Jamet, app. 3 Montréal (Québec) H1E 6V5 Appellant and AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL (ADM) 1100, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, bureau 2100 Montréal (Québec) H3B 4X8 Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER PELLETIER J.A. [1] The appellant is appealing a Federal Court judgment which denied him an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review from a decision of the Assistant Privacy Commissioner. Once his notice of appeal was filed, the appellant did nothing further with his case until the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. The appellant objected to this motion and filed his own motion for an extension of time to file the agreement on the content of the appeal record. It is apparent on the face of the motion that no agreement was reached between the parties as to the content of the appeal record. [2] A judge of this Court dismissed both motions. In so doing, he drew the appellant’s attention to the fact that he would shortly be receiving a status review notice and would do well to respond to that. The appellant will have to explain his failure to act since filing his notice of appeal. It would be advisable to file either the agreement on the content of the appeal record or a motion to determine the content of the appeal record together with a motion for an extension of time. [3] What was bound to happen happened: the appellant received the status review notice and responded. However, his reply did not provide any reasons for his failure to act since filing his notice of appeal and was not accompanied by an agreement as to the content of the appeal record nor by a motion asking that this Court determine the content of the record. [4] In short, the appellant did not comply with the deadlines for filing his notice of application for judicial review and did not observe the deadlines relating to his appeal. It would have been in his interest to show that, in spite of everything, his case was meritorious and there was an explanation for the delay. He did neither of these things. Accordingly, the Court has nothing before it to suggest that dismissal of this dilatory appeal would lead to injustice. [5] The notice of appeal will be dismissed for delay. “J.D. Denis Pelletier” J.A. I concur. Robert Décary J.A. I concur. Gilles Létourneau J.A. Certified true translation François Brunet, LLB, BCL FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-393-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: ÉRIC SARRAZIN v. AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL (ADM) WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pelletier J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A. Létourneau J.A. DATED: May 8, 2006 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mathieu Marchand FOR THE APPELLANT Lukasz Granosik FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mathieu Marchand Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT Lukasz Granosik Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT