Spidel v. Canada (Attorney General)

Spidel v. Canada (Attorney General)

The prothonotary's decision to grant a one‑day extension was within discretion because the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, demonstrated a continuing intention to oppose, the delay was short and caused no prejudice, and the costs allocation was justified in light of the applicant's refusal to consent; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Citation
2010 FC 829
Parties
Applicant: Michael Aaron Spidel; Respondent: Canada (Attorney General)
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal of Prothonotary's Order (motion in Writing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to the Respondent.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Costs, Prothonotary Discretion, Judicial Review Procedure
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Federal Court Practice Extension of Time Costs Prothonotary Discretion Judicial Review Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Aaron Spidel

Applicant

Canada (Attorney General)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal of Prothonotary's Order (motion in Writing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prothonotary erred in granting an extension of time to file a Notice of Appearance
  2. 2 Whether the questions in the motion were vital to the final issue of the judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the prothonotary misapplied Rule 410(2) in relation to costs and consent

Ratio Decidendi

The prothonotary's decision to grant a one‑day extension was within discretion because the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, demonstrated a continuing intention to oppose, the delay was short and caused no prejudice, and the costs allocation was justified in light of the applicant's refusal to consent; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to the Respondent.

Orders

  • The Applicant's motion appealing the Prothonotary's Order dated July 8, 2010 is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the Respondent.