Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General)
The motion to quash the Notice of Appeal was dismissed because the jurisdictional issue raised should not be decided without oral argument and should be considered by the panel hearing the appeal; the respondent must address the jurisdictional issue in its Memorandum.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2002 FCA 377
- Parties
- Appellant: Helmut Oberlander; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (motion to Quash Notice of Appeal) / Motion Stage Dealt With in Writing; Matter Deferred to Panel Hearing
- Outcome
- Motion dismissed; matter deferred to the panel hearing of the appeal; costs awarded in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Notice of Appeal, Motion to Quash, Oral Argument, Costs
- 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
Helmut Oberlander
Appellant
The Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (motion to Quash Notice of Appeal) / Motion Stage Dealt With in Writing; Matter Deferred to Panel Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Notice of Appeal should be quashed
- 2 Whether the jurisdictional issue may be decided without oral argument
- 3 Whether the motion should be dismissed or deferred to the panel hearing
Ratio Decidendi
The motion to quash the Notice of Appeal was dismissed because the jurisdictional issue raised should not be decided without oral argument and should be considered by the panel hearing the appeal; the respondent must address the jurisdictional issue in its Memorandum.
Court Disposition
Motion dismissed; matter deferred to the panel hearing of the appeal; costs awarded in the cause.
Orders
- Motion to quash dismissed
- Matter deferred to the panel hearing of the appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-10-09 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 377 File numbers A-365-02 Decision Content Date: 20021009 Docket: A-365-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 377 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON BETWEEN: HELMUT OBERLANDER Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Motion dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 9, 2002. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20021009 Docket: A-365-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 377 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON BETWEEN: HELMUT OBERLANDER Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER [1] By its motion, the respondent seeks an order quashing the appellant's Notice of Appeal dated August 15, 2002. [2] Since, in my view, the issue raised in the respondent's motion should not be decided without the benefit of oral argument, it is preferable to defer the matter to the panel hearing the appeal. Consequently, the respondent should raise and discuss the jurisdictional issue in its Memorandum, along with the other issues which arise from this appeal. [3] The motion shall therefore be dismissed with costs in the cause. "M. Nadon" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-365-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: Helmut Oberlander v. A.G.C. MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: NADON J.A. DATED: October 9, 2002 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: BARBARA JACKMAN FOR THE APPELLANT ERIC HAFEMANN DONALD A. MacINTOSH FOR THE RESPONDENT and JOHN LONCAR SOLICITORS OF RECORD: BARBARA JACKMAN FOR THE APPELLANT Toronto, Ontario. ERIC HAFEMANN Waterloo, Ontario. MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT Attorney General of Canada