Conseil des Innus de Pessamit v. Riverin

Conseil des Innus de Pessamit v. Riverin

The Prothonotary did not err in considering the request contained in the motion record as sufficient to permit filing of the applicant's record; his decision was permitted by the Rules (notably rules 3,53(2) and 59) and was not ultra petita; there was no palpable and overriding error in finding the explanation for delay plausible and allowing the filing; appeal dismissed.

Citation
2017 FC 343
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): LE CONSEIL DES INNUS DE PESSAMIT; Defendant (appellant): YAN RIVERIN
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Appeal of Prothonotary Decision Rejecting Motion to Attack Irregularity
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Motion to Attack Irregularity, Prothonotary Discretion, Standard of Review, Ultra Petita, Relief From Failure to File
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Employment Law Extension of Time Motion to Attack Irregularity Prothonotary Discretion Standard of Review Ultra Petita +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LE CONSEIL DES INNUS DE PESSAMIT

Plaintiff (respondent)

YAN RIVERIN

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Appeal of Prothonotary Decision Rejecting Motion to Attack Irregularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Prothonotary rule ultra petita?
  2. 2 Was the Prothonotary's decision unfair?
  3. 3 Whether an application for extension of time must be a formal notice of motion or can be inferred from motion record

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary did not err in considering the request contained in the motion record as sufficient to permit filing of the applicant's record; his decision was permitted by the Rules (notably rules 3,53(2) and 59) and was not ultra petita; there was no palpable and overriding error in finding the explanation for delay plausible and allowing the filing; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • All without costs