Date: 20020606
Docket: 02-T-20
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 646
BETWEEN:
GLORIA (JEAN) ROBICHAUD,
Applicant,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
[1] The applicant requests an extension of time to file a Notice of Application. This is the second such request. The first request was dismissed by Strayer J.A. on November 27, 2001. In his Reasons for Order, Mr. Justice Strayer stated:
The decision complained of was made by a member of the Pension Appeals Board on November 24, 2000. The applicant filed this notice of motion for an extension of time on October 22, 2001, some 11 months later. In her affidavit she provides considerable detail as to her medical condition over the last 18 years but virtually no explanation as to why she delayed so long in applying to the Court. It is apparent that by at least February 23, 2001, when she first contacted the Court, she was aware that there was a time limit for applying for judicial review which she had already exceeded. While the Court tries to be flexible where self-represented parties are concerned, for an extension of time to be granted the Court must be satisfied that there was some good reason for the whole of the delay. None is provided here.
[2] The applicant then brought a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 397 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. That motion was not filed within the prescribed time limit and was not supported by an affidavit. The motion was dismissed on January 2, 2002. The present notice of motion is dated February 6, 2002 and is accompanied by the applicant's affidavit.
[3] The affidavit sworn February 6, 2002 constitutes an effort by the applicant to explain the delay. Essentially, the applicant states that she found the task of preparing the notice of motion difficult and challenging. She consulted an article clerk in Halifax who charged her a lower rate but after approximately two months, the clerk moved. The notice of motion had not been prepared. The applicant made further efforts to complete an affidavit but health issues and household chores hindered her progress. She consulted a lawyer but could not afford to retain him. The applicant deposed that, from June, 2001 to October, 2001, she "fitted working on my affidavit in with my light household chores on my good days". After the motions referred to earlier were dismissed, the applicant consulted two additional lawyers. In the final analysis, she completed her own affidavit.
[4] While I have sympathy for the applicant, I do not find that the chronology described in her affidavit provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. In addition to reasons for delay, the Court must also be satisfied that there is an arguable case: Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 2 F.C. 263 (C.A.). There is no evidence whatsoever to establish the existence of an arguable case on the merits.
[5] The motion is therefore dismissed.
___________________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 6, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 02-T-20
STYLE OF CAUSE: GLORIA (JEAN) ROBICHAUD V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR Order : The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
DATED: June 6, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Gloria Jean Robichaud FOR PLAINTIFF / APPLICANT
N/A FOR DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Gloria Jean Robichaud FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
Truro, Nova Scotia
N/A FOR DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT