Utovac v. Canada (Treasury Board)
- Citation
- 2004 FC 1615
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 18 November 2004
- Posture
- Judicial Review / Appeal From Prothonotary's Refusal to Extend Time for Cross Examination
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 18 November 2004
- Posture
- Judicial Review / Appeal From Prothonotary's Refusal to Extend Time for Cross Examination
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the Deputy Head reconsidered, cancelled the original decision and ordered a new de novo hearing, the first judicial review application was moot; the appeal of the Prothonotary's refusal to extend time is dismissed, but the applicant may seek costs related to the first application as decided by the Prothonotary.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Applicant permitted to seek costs related to the first (now moot) judicial review application as determined by the Prothonotary
02
Material facts
Parties
Antun Utovac
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Antun UtovacHer Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by Treasury Board
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Richard Fader03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Prothonotary's Refusal to Extend Time for Cross Examination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Prothonotary erred in refusing to grant an extension of time for cross-examination of the deponent of an affidavit
- 02
Whether the underlying judicial review application is moot
- 03
Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for the first (now moot) application
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant argued the Prothonotary should have granted an extension of time to permit cross-examination of the affidavit deponent and that the matter should proceed.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued the Deputy Head had reconsidered and cancelled the impugned decision, ordered a new hearing rendering the first application moot and opposing an extension of time.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Court practice and mootness doctrine
Court may decline relief in respect of a moot matter
- 02
Federal Court practice/discretion
Prothonotary has discretion to grant or refuse extensions of time under the court's procedural rules
- 03
Prothonotary's determinations and court practice
Costs may be awarded for proceedings that become moot where appropriate
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the Deputy Head reconsidered, cancelled the original decision and ordered a new de novo hearing, the first judicial review application was moot; the appeal of the Prothonotary's refusal to extend time is dismissed, but the applicant may seek costs related to the first application as decided by the Prothonotary.
Obiter and limits
- A new Classification Review Committee hearing de novo was held on June 29, 2004
- A subsequent determination arising from the new hearing is the subject of another judicial review application
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Applicant permitted to seek costs related to the first (now moot) judicial review application as determined by the Prothonotary
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 18 November 2004
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 18 November 2004
Utovac v. Canada (Treasury Board) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-11-18 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1615 File numbers T-732-04 Decision Content Date: 20041118 Docket: T-732-04 Citation: 2004 FC 1615 BETWEEN:
ANTUN UTOVAC Applicant - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by TREASURY BOARD Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER PINARD J.: [1] The applicant appeals the discretionary decision of Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch, dated November 1st, 2004, refusing to grant him an extension of time for the cross-examination of the deponent of an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. [2] The underlying judicial review application arises out of a decision rendered by Mr. Gilles Carpentier, the Deputy Head's Nominee for Classification Grievances, on March 10, 2004. The same day that the applicant served and filed his affidavit in support of his application for judicial review, the Deputy Head wrote to him indicating that he had reconsidered his position, cancelled the decision and ordered a new hearing. A new Classification Review Committee was set up and a hearing de novo took place on June 29, 2004. A new determination has since been made and is now also the subject of a judicial review application brought by the applicant. [3] In the circumstances, I find that the first application for judicial review is moot and that the applicant must be allowed an opportunity to seek the costs related thereto, as decided by the Prothonotary. [4] Consequently, the applicant's motion (appeal) is dismissed, with costs.
JUDGE OTTAWA, ONTARIO November 18, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-732-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: ANTUN UTOVAC v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by TREASURY BOARD PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: November 18, 2004 REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard DATED: November 18, 2004 APPEARANCES: Mr. Antun Utovac THE APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF Mr. Richard Fader FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Antun Utovac THE APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF Ottawa, Ontario Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.