Hallen v. Canada (Attorney General)
The appeal was dismissed because the court found the challenged measure was a singular discrete decision communicated on July 14, 2005, thereby triggering the 30‑day limit under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act; the appellant did not commence the application within that period or obtain leave, so the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 FCA 229
- Parties
- Appellant: Michal Hallen; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal (determination on Delay/time Bar)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Delay, Limitation Periods, Leave to Commence Judicial Review
- 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
Michal Hallen
Appellant
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal (determination on Delay/time Bar)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's judicial review application was time‑barred under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act
- 2 Whether the impugned action was a singular, discrete decision by Treasury Board communicated on July 14, 2005
- 3 Whether leave to commence the application beyond the statutory 30‑day period was obtained or justified
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the court found the challenged measure was a singular discrete decision communicated on July 14, 2005, thereby triggering the 30‑day limit under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act; the appellant did not commence the application within that period or obtain leave, so the application was properly dismissed for delay.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Hallen v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2014-10-14 Neutral citation 2014 FCA 229 File numbers A-108-14 Decision Content Date: 20141014 Docket: A-108-14 Citation: 2014 FCA 229 CORAM: NADON J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: MICHAL HALLEN Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 14, 2014. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 14, 2014. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20141014 Docket: A-108-14 Citation: 2014 FCA 229 CORAM: NADON J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: MICHAL HALLEN Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 14, 2014). NADON J.A. [1] We are of the view that the Federal Court made no error in concluding that, because of delay, the applicant’s judicial review application had to be dismissed. [2] We are satisfied that what is at issue in these proceedings, is a singular, discrete decision made by Treasury Board in June 2005 and communicated to the appellant by a letter from Public Works and Government Services Canada, dated July 14, 2005, which informed him that a transfer of pension credits under the Loba Limited reciprocal pension transfer agreement was not possible. [3] Consequently, the appellant, under subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 was bound to act within the thirty-day period specified in the section or obtain leave to commence his application beyond that period. [4] The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs. “Marc Nadon” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-108-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHAL HALLEN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: October 14, 2014 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. APPEARANCES: DOUGLAS E. BROWN For The Appellant ANNE M. TURLEY For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP Ottawa, Ontario For The Appellant MICHAL HALLEN William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent