Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General)

Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-04-29 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 195 File numbers A-492-02 Decision Content Date: 20030429 Docket: A-492-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 195 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: DENIS BRAZEAU Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 29, 2003. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 29, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: RICHARD C.J. CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. Date: 20030429 Docket: A-492-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 195 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: DENIS BRAZEAU Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RICHARD C.J. [1] This is an appeal of the order of Mr. Justice Teitelbaum, in the Trial Division, dated August 8, 2002 which allowed the Attorney General's motion to strike the applicant's notice of application for judicial review, on the basis that judicial review of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was beyond the jurisdiction of this Court since the Supreme Court is not a "federal board, commission, or other tribunal" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Federal Court Act. The motions judge fixed costs at $500.00. [2] The Appellant claimed that the Honourable Mr. Justice Teitelbaum: i) Erred in finding that the reasons given by the Respondent are grounds to strke the Notice of Application for Judicial Reveiw. ii) Erred in finding that it is both apparent an obvious that the Federal Court of Canada cannot entertain an application for judicial review of a decision fo the Supreme Court of Canada. iii) Erred in awarding costs. [3] The Appellant had sought the following relief in his notice of application for judicial review: 1. The Court to order the Supreme Court to grant the Applicant a lawful Reconsideration Hearing: to be heard by at least five Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court who did not concur in the initial denial of Leave to Appeal; their judgment should contain written opinion(s); to conform to ss. 25, 26, and 28 of the Supreme Court Act which the Supreme Court has unlawfully failed or refused to do. 2. In the alternative, the Court to declare the Supreme Court decision invalid or unlawful, or to quash or set aside and refer back for a lawful Reconsideration Hearing: to be heard by at least five Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court who did not concur in the initial denial of Leave to Appeal; their judgment should contain written opinion(s); to conform to ss. 25, 26, and 28 of the Supreme Court Act. 3. In the alternative, an order setting aside the Supreme Court decision refusing a lawful Reconsideration hearing, and on order referring the matter back to the Supreme Court for redetermination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate. [4] The Respondent brought a motion in writing pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Court Rules, seeking to strike the Notice of Application for judicial review. The grounds were as follows: 1. The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's proceeding; 2. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to deny the Applicant's Application for reconsideration for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is not subject to judicial review by this Court; 3. The Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are not a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Federal Court Act; 4. The proceeding constitutes an abuse of process of the Court; 5. Federal Court Act, s. 2(1) and 18; 6. Such further grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permits. [5] Mr. Justice Teitelbaum's order and reasons for order are reproduced below: For the reasons given by the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, as grounds for the motion for an Order striking the application for judicial review issued June 5, 2002, the application to strike the Notice of Application is allowed. It is both apparent and obvious that the Federal Court of Canada cannot entertain an application for judicial review of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The application is allowed with costs which are fixed at the sum of $500.00. [6] This Court has inherent jurisdiction to strike a notice of application for judicial review, where it is clearly so improper as to be bereft of any chance of success (David Bull Laboratories (Can.) v. Pharmacia Inc., [1995] 1 F.C. 588 (C.A.)). [7] We are all of the view that this appeal should be dismissed. Since Mr. Brazeau's application for judicial review is bereft of any possibility of success it was appropriate for the judge to strike the application for judicial review. The application was bound to fail because the Supreme Court of Canada is not a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within the meaning of sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. Therefore, its decisions or orders cannot be the subject of an application for judicial review in the Federal Court. [8] The Appellant has not pointed to any evidence in his written memorandum which would suggest that the Trial Judge committed a reviewable error in exercising his discretion to order costs. [9] For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $1,000.00 inclusive of disbursements. "J. Richard" Chief Justice "I agree Marc Noël J.A." "I agree M. Nadon J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-492-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: DENIS BRAZEAU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 29, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: RICHARD C.J. CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. DATED: APRIL 29, 2003 APPEARANCES: NOT APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT Ms. Marie-Josée Montreuil FOR THE RESPONDENT (613) 941-2345 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Denis Brazeau APPELLANT Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada