Ramlall v. Canada

Ramlall v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-09-12 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 300 File numbers A-347-05 Decision Content Date: 20060912 Docket: A-347-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 300 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: HEMCHAND RAMLALL, BA; MD; DOHS; MCCEE; MCCQE (Pts 1 & 2) Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on September 12, 2006. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 12, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20060912 Docket: A-347-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 300 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: HEMCHAND RAMLALL, BA; MD; DOHS; MCCEE; MCCQE (Pts 1 & 2) Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 12, 2006) NADON J.A. [1] On May 10, 2005, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer dismissed the appellant’s Statement of Claim against the respondent on the ground that it was plain and obvious that it could not possibly succeed. [2] The appellant did not commence an appeal from that order but brought a motion, pursuant to Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, for a reconsideration of the order by the judge. [3] On July 4, 2005, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer dismissed the appellant’s motion without costs. [4] Reconsideration under Rule 397 is possible when an order does not accord with the reasons given by the judge or when a matter that should have been dealt with by the judge was overlooked or accidentally omitted. [5] In our view, the judge made no reviewable error in dismissing the appellant’s motion. [6] We wish to point out that although the appellant was duly notified of the date on which his appeal would be heard, he failed to appear. Nonetheless, in reaching the present result his written submissions were carefully considered. [7] It appears clearly from the appellant’s written submissions that he is not, in reality, seeking reconsideration under Rule 397 but is attempting to have the judge reconsider, on the merits, her order of May 10, 2005. Hence, the recourse open to him for that purpose was not a motion for reconsideration but would have been the filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to subsection 27(1) of the Federal Courts Act. [8] The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs fixed in the sum of $500.00 “Marc Nadon” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-347-05 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED JULY 4, 2005, DOCKET NO. T-527-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: Hemchand Ramlall, Ba; MD; DOHS; McCEE; MCCQE (Pts 1 & 2) –vs- Her Majesty the Queen PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: September 12, 2006 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NADON J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. APPEARANCES: Hemchand Ramlall (on his own behalf) FOR THE APPELLANT Alex Kaufman FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Hemchand Ramlall Scarborough, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT