Ross v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner)
Given the procedural confusion and the appellant's filing of an amended application, the court exercised its discretion to clarify the appeal record and ordered that items 6 and 7 be included in the Appeal Book so the appeal could proceed with those documents; the judge identified that the specific order appealed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 459
- Parties
- Appellant: Arthur Ross; Respondent: Warden of Bowden Institution #3; Respondent: Commissioner of Corrections Canada and The Privacy Commissioner
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 August 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal; Motions to Strike and Clarification of Appeal Record
- Outcome
- Order clarifying documents to be included in the Appeal Book and directing inclusion of specified items; reasons issued for selection of documents.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Motion to Strike, Leave to Refile, 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 Ross
Appellant
Warden of Bowden Institution #3
Respondent
Commissioner of Corrections Canada and The Privacy Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal; Motions to Strike and Clarification of Appeal Record
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for judicial review should be struck out
- 2 Whether the amended application filed May 15, 2002 should be considered on appeal
- 3 Whether the orders of May 22, 2002 (dismissing applications) were properly recorded and are the subject of appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Given the procedural confusion and the appellant's filing of an amended application, the court exercised its discretion to clarify the appeal record and ordered that items 6 and 7 be included in the Appeal Book so the appeal could proceed with those documents; the judge identified that the specific order appealed was the striking of the application against the Warden and Commissioner (Doc. 51) which also carried the costs award.
Court Disposition
Order clarifying documents to be included in the Appeal Book and directing inclusion of specified items; reasons issued for selection of documents.
Orders
- Items 6 and 7 to be included in the Appeal Book for the appeal
- Proceedings and motions dealt with on the written record without appearances
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ross v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-08-23 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 459 File numbers A-389-02 Decision Content Date: 20020823 Docket: A-389-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 459 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. BETWEEN: ARTHUR ROSS Appellant and THE WARDEN OF BOWDEN INSTITUTION #3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS CANADA and THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER STRAYER J.A. [1] As I have spent some hours trying to ascertain what documents are relevant to this appeal I believe it will be conducive to the further conduct of the appeal if I explain the basis of my selection. The situation is confused because it appears Her Majesty applied to strike out the judicial review on behalf of all the respondents or in the alternative to strike out the Warden and Commissioner of Corrections, but the Privacy Commissioner made a separate application on his own behalf alone. Then the appellant filed his own notices of motion to strike out these various motions by the respondents. In the meantime Prothonotary Aronovitch, responding apparently to a request for directions from the Registry, ordered on her own motion that the appellant have leave to refile his material on the basis of one application for judicial review in respect of each of the decisions he sought to attack. He then refiled an application only in respect of the Privacy Commissioner (it is not clear what decision of that Commissioner he sought to attack). This was filed on May 15, 2002. [2] Pinard J. on May 22, 2002 issued 4 orders, respectively dismissing the application for judicial review against the respondent Warden and Commissioner of Corrections, the application for judicial review against the Privacy Commissioner, and the appellant's two motions to dismiss respectively each of these motions for dismissal of the judicial review. In the appellant's notice of appeal the only order of May 22, 2002 specifically appealed is the one striking the application for judicial review against the Warden and the Commissioner for Corrections (Doc. 51). (He complains of the award of costs against him and such costs are only awarded in Doc. 51). However, as he complains in his appeal as to the fact that his amended application for judicial review, filed on May 15, 2002, is nowhere referred to in this order of May 22, 2002, I have concluded that items 6 and 7 should also appear in the Appeal Book for whatever consideration they may require. J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD COURT FILE NO.: A-389-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: ARTHUR ROSS V.THE WARDEN OF BOWDEN INSTITUTION #3 ET AL MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCES OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: STRAYER J.A. DATED: AUGUST 23, 2002 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. Arthur Ross.APPELLANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF No written representations on behalf of the Respondents SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nelligan O'Brien PayneFOR THE RESPONDENTS Ottawa, Ontario