James Grant Gordon (Applicant)
v.
The Institutional Head of Matsqui Institution
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J.—Ottawa, June 28,
1973.
Practice—Application for extension of time to review deci
sion of tribunal—Procedure—Federal Court Act, s. 28; Rules
324(2), (3) and (4), 1107.
APPLICATION.
SOLICITORS:
Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy, Van-
couver, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
JACKETT CJ.—This is an application for
extension of time for a section 28 application.
Such applications are governed by Rule
1107(1), which reads as follows:
Rule 1107. (1) Unless the Chief Justice, or a judge nominat
ed by him, of his own motion or on an ex parte request,
otherwise directs for special reason,
(a) an application under section 31(2) of the Act for leave
to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada that is being made as contem
plated by Rule 1106(1)(d),
(b) an application for leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeal, or
(c) an application to the Court of Appeal or to a judge
thereof for an extension of time,
shall be made in the manner contemplated by Rule 324 and
the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 324
shall be applicable to any such application as if it were made
under paragraph (1) of Rule 324.
That rule must be read with paragraphs (2), (3)
and (4) of Rule 324, which read as follows:
(2) A copy of the request to have the motion considered
without personal appearance and a copy of the written
representations shall be served on each opposing party with
the copy of the notice of motion that is served on him.
(3) A party who opposes a motion under paragraph (1)
may send representations in writing to the Registry and to
each other party or he may file an application in writing for
an oral hearing and send a copy thereof to the other side.
(4) No motion under paragraph (1) shall be disposed of
until the Court is satisfied that all interested parties have
had a reasonable opportunity to make representations either
in writing or orally.
This application was made, in disregard of the
above Rules, in the following terms:
TAKE No TICE that the Court will be moved on behalf of
James Grant Gordon, the applicant herein, at Vancouver, in
the Province of British Columbia, on Monday, the 9th day
of July, 1973, at the hour of 10:30 o'clock in the forenoon
for an Order extending the time within which the Applicant
may make an application to review the decisions and orders
of the Respondent made on the 15th day of June, 1972 and
the 21st day of September, 1972, whereby sixty days of the
statutory remission credited to the applicant under the Peni
tentiary Act, was forfeited.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that in support of this applica
tion for the extension of time will be read the Affidavit of
James Grant Gordon, sworn on the 13th day of June, 1973
and filed herein and such further and other material as
Counsel may advise.
In the absence of "special reason", an
application must be made as required by Rule
1107(1). It will be time enough to consider a
request for an oral hearing when it is deter
mined that the application is not going to be
granted on the written submissions. If the Court
so determines, and there is included a request
for an oral hearing, the Court will give serious
consideration to such request but it must, of
course, be supported by some substantial reason
for concluding that, in the circumstances of the
particular case, the applicant cannot adequately
present his application in writing.
Similarly, a party opposing an application to
which Rule 1107(1) applies may, with his
representations in writing under Rule 324(3),
make a request for an oral hearing if it is decid
ed that the application is otherwise going to be
granted on the written submissions, and in any
such case, the Court will of course give serious
consideration to the request for an oral hearing
before granting the application but the request
for an oral hearing must, of course, be support
ed by some substantial reason for concluding
that, in the circumstances of the particular case,
the party cannot adequately present his position
in writing.
The Notice of Motion in this case was made
presentable in Vancouver on July 9 next
although no arrangement had been made for a
Court to be sitting in Vancouver on that date.
Having regard to the fact that the Notice of
Motion was filed in disregard of the Rules, there
will be no Court available to hear the motion at
that time. The motion may be renewed in
accordance with Rule 1107(1).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.