Kibale v. Canada

Kibale v. Canada

The Court dismissed the reconsideration motion because it had already addressed the appeal's three issues (prothonotary jurisdiction, striking out for no cause of action, and refusal to grant leave to amend) and Rule 397 cannot be used to re-open or appeal the merits of that decision; therefore the motion was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCA 436
Parties
Appellant: Guillaume Kibale; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998
Outcome
Applicant's motion for reconsideration dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Statement of Claim for Disclosing No Cause of Action, Jurisdiction of Prothonotary, Leave to Amend Statement of Claim, Reconsideration Under Rule 397
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Striking Out Statement of Claim for Disclosing No Cause of Action Jurisdiction of Prothonotary Leave to Amend Statement of Claim Reconsideration Under Rule 397

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guillaume Kibale

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 397(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary had jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim disclosed a cause of action and thus whether striking out was justified
  3. 3 Whether leave to amend the statement of claim should have been granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the reconsideration motion because it had already addressed the appeal's three issues (prothonotary jurisdiction, striking out for no cause of action, and refusal to grant leave to amend) and Rule 397 cannot be used to re-open or appeal the merits of that decision; therefore the motion was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion for reconsideration dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed with costs.