Purdy v. Canada (Military Police Complaints Commission)
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge's discretionary refusal to grant an extension of time did not disclose a misapprehension of the facts or an error of law, and thus the appellate court would not interfere with that exercise of discretion; no costs awarded as respondent did not seek them.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 FCA 205
- Parties
- Appellant: Jennifer Purdy; Respondent: Military Police Complaints Commission
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Judicial Review (extension of Time) and Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Appeal From Motion Judge's Refusal to Grant Extension of Time to File Judicial Review Application
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Discretionary Decision, 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
Jennifer Purdy
Appellant
Military Police Complaints Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (extension of Time) and Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Appeal From Motion Judge's Refusal to Grant Extension of Time to File Judicial Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review
- 2 Whether the motion judge misapprehended the facts or made an error of law in exercising discretion
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge's discretionary refusal to grant an extension of time did not disclose a misapprehension of the facts or an error of law, and thus the appellate court would not interfere with that exercise of discretion; no costs awarded as respondent did not seek them.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- No costs awarded
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Purdy v. Canada (Military Police Complaints Commission) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-06-16 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 205 File numbers A-562-08 Decision Content Date: 20090616 Docket: A-562-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 205 CORAM: SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. RYER J.A. BETWEEN: JENNIFER PURDY Appellant and MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. Date: 20090616 Docket: A-562-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 205 CORAM: SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. RYER J.A. BETWEEN: JENNIFER PURDY Appellant and MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 16, 2009) LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. [1] We appreciate the appellant’s laudable efforts to seek improvement to the military police investigation process while she also seeks a remedy for what she perceives as an injustice to her. [2] However, we are of the view that the appeal must be dismissed. We are not persuaded, on the facts of this matter, that the motion judge’s discretionary decision, refusing the request for an extension of time within which to bring an application for judicial review, discloses a misapprehension of the facts or an error of law. [3] The respondent did not request costs and none will be awarded. "Carolyn Layden-Stevenson" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-562-08 (APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF JUSTICE HARRINGTON OF THE FEDERAL COURT, DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2008, DOCKET 08-T-49 STYLE OF CAUSE: Jennifer Purdy v. Military Police Complaints Commission PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 2009 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (SHARLOW, LAYDEN-STEVENSON, RYER JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A APPEARANCES: Ms. Jamie Liew FOR THE APPELLANT/ Mr. Nigel Marshman FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Galldin Liew LLP Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT/ Military Police Complaints Commission Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT