Stubicar v. Canada (Prime Minister)
The appeal is dismissed because the May 7, 2012 Direction and the subsequent October 16, 2012 Direction are moot given that the motion was not heard and no decision has been rendered; setting out the substance of the October 16 Direction would not alter the mootness, and the Federal Court retains authority to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2013 FCA 204
- Parties
- Appellant: Vlasta Stubicar; Respondent: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Federal Court of Appeal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Refusal to Set Out Direction in Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Mootness, Procedural Directions, Motions, Costs, Oral Hearing Vs Written Submissions, Federal Courts Rules
- 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
Vlasta Stubicar
Appellant
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Federal Court of Appeal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Refusal to Set Out Direction in Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Direction of May 7, 2012 and the subsequent Direction of October 16, 2012 are moot
- 2 Whether the substance of the October 16, 2012 Direction must be set out in an Order
- 3 Whether the appeal from the Order dated November 6, 2012 should be dismissed and costs awarded
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the May 7, 2012 Direction and the subsequent October 16, 2012 Direction are moot given that the motion was not heard and no decision has been rendered; setting out the substance of the October 16 Direction would not alter the mootness, and the Federal Court retains authority to determine whether the underlying motion will proceed orally or on written representations under Rule 369; costs awarded as set out in reasons for A-454-12.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal from the Order dated November 6, 2012 dismissed with costs as set out in the reasons for Appeal A-454-12
- No substantive order setting out the substance of the October 16, 2012 Direction is required because the underlying Direction is moot
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Stubicar v. Canada (Prime Minister) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2013-09-10 Neutral citation 2013 FCA 204 File numbers A-482-12 Decision Content Date: 20130910 Docket: A-482-12 Citation: 2013 FCA 204 CORAM: NADON J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: VLASTA STUBICAR Appellant and DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 10, 2013. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 10, 2013. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: WEBB J.A. Date: 20130910 Docket: A-482-12 Citation: 2013 FCA 204 CORAM: NADON J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: VLASTA STUBICAR Appellant and DEPUTY MINISTER AND MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 10, 2013) WEBB J.A. [1] In Appeal A-482-12, the appellant is appealing the Order of Tremblay-Lamer, J. dated November 6, 2012. In that Order the Judge dismissed the appellant’s motion requesting that the substance of the Direction issued by the same Judge on October 16, 2012, be set out in an Order. The Direction stated that the motion of the Appellant to vary the Direction of Prothonotary Aronovitch on May 7, 2012 is moot. The May 7, 2012 Direction was that the Appellant’s then recently filed motion in T-618-12 could proceed to an oral hearing on May 24, 2012, to be heard with three other motions of the Appellant. [2] The Appellant’s objection to this Direction is that she did not want the recently filed motion to be heard with the other motions but rather she wanted it to be dealt with in writing. [3] Since the motion in T-618-12 was not heard on May 24, 2012 and to date, has not been heard (nor has any decision been rendered based on the written submissions), the Direction dated May 7, 2012 that the Motion could be heard with three other motions on May 24,2012 is moot. The subsequent Direction simply confirms this. Even if the substance of the Direction dated October 16, 2012 were to be set in an Order, the Direction dated May 7, 2012 would still be moot. The Appellant’s appeal from the Order dated November 6, 2012 will be dismissed with costs as set out in the reasons for the Appeal A-454-12. Whether there will be an oral hearing for the Appellant’s motion in T-618-12 or the motion will be decided on the basis of written representations as provided in Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules is a matter for the Federal Court to determine. “Wyman W. Webb” J.A.