Merck Frosst Canada c. Canada (Minister of National Health)

Merck Frosst Canada c. Canada (Minister of National Health)

The 20‑day limitation in s.44(1) of the Access to Information Act is a statutory deadline that the Court has no authority to extend; accordingly the trial judge correctly dismissed the application for extension and the motion to incorporate the late filing, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCA 40
Parties
Appellant: MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.; Respondent: MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal (administrative Law) / Appeal From Trial Division Decisions on Extension of Time and Motion to Incorporate Proceedings
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs (dockets A-842-99 and A-843-99).
Legal Topics
Statutory Limitation Periods, Extension of Time, Incorporation of Proceedings, Access to Information
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Access to Information Act Judicial Review Procedural Law Statutory Limitation Periods Extension of Time Incorporation of Proceedings Access to Information

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO.

Appellant

MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal (administrative Law) / Appeal From Trial Division Decisions on Extension of Time and Motion to Incorporate Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the Court has discretion to extend the 20‑day limitation period in s.44(1) of the Access to Information Act
  2. 2 Whether a proceeding filed after the limitation period can be incorporated into an existing application for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The 20‑day limitation in s.44(1) of the Access to Information Act is a statutory deadline that the Court has no authority to extend; accordingly the trial judge correctly dismissed the application for extension and the motion to incorporate the late filing, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs (dockets A-842-99 and A-843-99).

Orders

  • Appeals A-842-99 and A-843-99 dismissed with costs.