Buck v. Canada
The appeal was dismissed and the application for an extension denied because the appellant failed to respond to the show cause order, provided an inadequate explanation for delay, and demonstrated a history of unexplained procrastination; dismissal and costs were warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2001 FCA 367
- Parties
- Appellant: Dean Buck; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Motion to Dismiss for Delay and Motion for Extension of Time on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appellant's motion for extension of time dismissed; respondent's motion to dismiss appeal for delay granted; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Extension of Time, Delay, Show Cause Order
- 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
Dean Buck
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal for Want of Prosecution / Motion to Dismiss for Delay and Motion for Extension of Time on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file a Requisition for Hearing
- 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay
- 3 Whether the appellant satisfied the Court's show cause order
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed and the application for an extension denied because the appellant failed to respond to the show cause order, provided an inadequate explanation for delay, and demonstrated a history of unexplained procrastination; dismissal and costs were warranted.
Court Disposition
Appellant's motion for extension of time dismissed; respondent's motion to dismiss appeal for delay granted; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- Motion for extension of time dismissed.
- Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal for delay granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Buck v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-11-27 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 367 File numbers A-553-00 Decision Content Date: 20011127 Docket: A-553-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 367 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. EVANS J.A. B E T W E E N: DEAN BUCK Appellant -- and -- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Respondent Motion dealt with without appearance at Ottawa, Ontario JUDGMENT delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday, November 27, 2001 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. EVANS J.A. Date: 20011127 Docket: A-553-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 367 C O R A M: STRAYER J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. EVANS J.A. B E T W E E N: DEAN BUCK Appellant -- and -- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT STRAYER J.A. [1] The original action which gave rise to an appeal to this Court was commenced in March, 1995. After many years of delay a show cause order was issued in the Trial Division requiring the appellant to show why the action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. As a result, Hugessen J. on August 17, 2000, did dismiss it, stating in part that "The plain fact is that the plaintiff has not respected any deadline set by the Court and has been alone responsible for the significant delays which have occurred since the first pre-trial conference in 1997." [2] The appellant filed a notice of appeal from that decision in this Court on September 18, 2000. An appeal book was prepared and filed and memoranda of fact and law were exchanged, although the appellant was several weeks late in filing his memorandum on February 11, 2001. That appears to be the last step he took in the appeal until the Court issued an order on August 16, 2001 requiring him to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for delay. [3] As a result the appellant proposed to file, not a reply to show such cause, but a defective motion for an extension of time to file a Requisition for Hearing. This was rejected for its defects and the appellant filed a revised motion on October 24, 2001 which was accepted for filing. In response to the motion to extend the time to file a Requisition, the respondent objected to such an extension and brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. In response to this motion the appellant simply refiled its earlier motion material which sought to justify an extension of time for filing a Requisition, adding brief written representations. [4] The appellant has nowhere responded directly to the show cause order of August 16, 2000. His only justification for the delay in filing a Requisition is a recitation in an affidavit deposed by his "legal agent", Mr. Harry Kopyto, who attributes the delay to his own "inadvertance", which inadvertence, it seems, arose from him not having consulted the Rules of the Court and "the legal work which I do is almost exclusively in respect of services performed in the Provincial Court [sic]". One might be more sympathetic to this appellant for the "inadvertance"of this particular "legal agent" were it not for the evidence on record of a history of delays and failures to appear on the part of the appellant and his various legal representatives throughout the history of this action and appeal. [5] I am therefore of the view that this appellant's motion for an extension of time should be dismissed, and the motion of the respondent to dismiss the appeal for delay should be granted with costs to the respondent. (s) "B.L. Strayer" J.A. I agree Marshall Rothstein J.A. I agree John M. Evans J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-553-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: DEAN BUCK -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA MOTION DEALT WITH ON RECORD REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Strayer J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: Rothstein J.A. Evans J.A. DATED: November 27, 2001 REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY: Mr. James E.R. Gray FOR THE APPELLANT Mr. Dean Buck ON HIS OWN BEHALF SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE APPELLANT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario Mr. Dean Buck ON HIS OWN BEHALF Toronto, Ontario