Froom v. Canada
The appeal is dismissed because there is no right of appeal from a procedural direction of the Court by a Prothonotary; the alleged lack of leave to bring the respondents' motion is a substantive question that must be decided at the motion hearing rather than by interlocutory appeal, and the Prothonotary did not err...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2003 FCA 141
- Parties
- Appellant: Arthur Froom; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen and the Minister of Justice
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (federal Court of Appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal From Prothonotary's Direction Setting Hearing Date
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Motion to Strike, Extension of Time, Leave to Bring Motion, Appealability of Procedural Directions, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Arthur Froom
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen and the Minister of Justice
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (federal Court of Appeal) / Interlocutory Appeal From Prothonotary's Direction Setting Hearing Date
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a right of appeal lies from a direction of the Court by a Prothonotary
- 2 Whether the Prothonotary had authority to set a hearing date for the respondents' motions
- 3 Whether respondents require leave to bring a motion to strike when they have not filed a defence within the prescribed time
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because there is no right of appeal from a procedural direction of the Court by a Prothonotary; the alleged lack of leave to bring the respondents' motion is a substantive question that must be decided at the motion hearing rather than by interlocutory appeal, and the Prothonotary did not err in setting the hearing date.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs payable forthwith by the appellant in the amount of $1,000.00 inclusive of disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Froom v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-03-17 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 141 File numbers A-232-02 Decision Content Date: 20030317 Docket: A-232-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 141 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. NADON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: ARTHUR FROOM Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, March 17, 2003. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, March 17, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. Date: 20030317 Docket: A-232-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 141 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. NADON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: ARTHUR FROOM Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on Monday, March 17, 2003.) EVANS J.A. [1] This appeal by Arthur Froom arises from a decision of a Prothonotary to set a date for the hearing of two motions brought by the respondents, the defendants in the matter. The motions are to strike the appellant’s statements of claim and, in the alternative, to seek an extension of time for filing a defence. The respondents did not seek leave of the Court to bring these motions when they requested that a date be set. [2] We are all of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Gibson J. made no error in dismissing the appeal: Froom v. The Queen, 2002 FCT 461. [3] No right of appeal lies from a direction of the Court: Pellikaan v. Canada, 2001 FCT 1415. Counsel for Mr. Froom argued that the Prothonotary had no power to set a date for the hearing of the motion to strike. He submitted that, because they have failed to file a defence within the time prescribed by the Federal Court Rules, 1998, and have not obtained an extension of time, the respondents require leave to file their motion. Whether, as counsel for Mr. Froom argues, the respondents require leave to file their motion to strike is a question that can be decided when the motion is heard. [4] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed with costs payable forthwith by the appellant in the amount of $1,000.00 inclusive of disbursements. “John M. Evans” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-232-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: ARTHUR FROOM Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE Respondent DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2003 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. DATED: MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2003 DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON MARCH 17, 2003. APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Lorne Waldman For the Appellant Ms. Dale Yurka For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Arthur Froom c/o David Cousins 425 University Ave Suite 203 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T6 For the Appellant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent