Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Condo v. Canada

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to respond to an interim notice of status review within the prescribed time, warranting dismissal under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

Court disposition

Action dismissed for delay

Orders

  • This action be and it is hereby dismissed for delay.

02

Material facts

Parties

Richard Condo

Plaintiff Counsel: Diane Condo; Condo Law Office

Her Majesty the Queen

Defendant Counsel: Toni Abi-Nasr; Veronique Forest; William F. Pentney

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Federal Court Action / Status Review/motion to Dismiss for Delay (rule 369)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff did not file any response to the interim notice of status review within the time limit and therefore did not advance arguments against dismissal.
Respondent
Defendant sought dismissal for delay under Rule 369 due to the plaintiff's failure to respond to the interim notice of status review.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Courts Rules, Rule 369

    Court may dismiss an action for delay.

  2. 02

    Federal Court case management practice/Federal Courts Rules

    Failure to respond to an interim notice of status review permits dismissal for delay.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to respond to an interim notice of status review within the prescribed time, warranting dismissal under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules.

Court disposition

Action dismissed for delay

  • This action be and it is hereby dismissed for delay.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 12 August 2016

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 12 August 2016

2016 FC 928

Condo v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2016-08-12 Neutral citation 2016 FC 928 File numbers T-1611-14 Decision Content Date: 20160812 Docket: T-1611-14 Citation: 2016 FC 928 Ottawa, Ontario, August 12, 2016 PRESENT: Case Management Judge Mireille Tabib BETWEEN:

RICHARD CONDO Plaintiff and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant

JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Plaintiff having been served with an interim notice of status review requiring him to state the reasons why this action should not be dismissed for delay and the Plaintiff having failed to respond to the said notice within the time limited for so doing.

JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1. This action be and it is hereby dismissed for delay. "Mireille Tabib" Prothonotary

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1611-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD CONDO v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES. JUDGMENT AND REASONS: TABIB P. DATED: August 12, 2016 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

DIANE CONDO For The Plaintiff TONI ABI-NASR

VERONIQUE FOREST For The Defendant SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

CONDO LAW OFFICE Barrister and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario For The Plaintiff William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec For The Defendant

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Federal Courts Rules, Rule 369

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.