Petro-Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)

Petro-Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2004-10-22
Neutral citation
2004 FC 1478
File numbers
T-2420-03
Decision Content
Date: 20041022
Docket: T-2420-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1478
Toronto, Ontario, October 22nd, 2004
Present: Roger R. Lafrenière, Esquire
Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
PETRO-CANADA
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] On August 31, 2004, the Chief Justice issued a Notice of Status Review (Notice), pursuant to Rule 380(1) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules), requiring the Applicant to show cause by written submissions why this application should not be dismissed for delay. The status review was triggered by the Applicant's failure to requisition a hearing date within 180 days of issuance of the notice of application.
[2] Counsel for the Applicant filed brief submissions on September 29, 2004 in response to the Notice. He wrote that the present application relates to the interpretation and application of the Syncrude Remission Order, P.C. 1976-1026, May 6, 1976, which provides for the remission of income tax in respect of the Syncrude Project, a large oil exploration project in the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta. Counsel referred to two other actions, involving a different applicant, that are proceeding in the Federal Court relating to the interpretation of the Syncrude Remission Order. He also advised that the parties in the two other actions are the same as counsel for the parties in this application, and that the second round of discoveries in those action are tentatively scheduled for early November 2004. Based on the above, the parties are jointly requested that the status review be deferred until November 30, 2004 to allow the parties to continue discussions, with a view to potentially resolving the issues in the application.
[3] In my view, the Applicant has failed to establish that an adjournment of the status review is an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion. The Rules have equipped the Court with various procedural tools to enable it to assume an active role in the management and supervision of proceedings, given their general objective in favour of moving cases through the system in a timely and efficient manner. It would generally be counter-productive and inconsistent for the Court to defer a status review, since it would only serve to condone, and exacerbate, a delay that has yet to be explained, or excused. In the present case, it was simply not open to the parties to ignore the deadlines set out in Part 5 of the Rules, and unilaterally grant themselves a stay of proceedings. The deferral request must therefore be denied.
[4] Failure to comply with the rules of procedure, and a failure to provide a good justification for the delay and an action plan to move the application forward, would normally justify a dismissal: Sokolowska v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2004 FCA 318, September 24, 2004. However, based on the written submissions filed on behalf of the Applicant and my review of the Court file, I am satisfied that the application discloses an arguable case and that the Applicant has maintained a continued intention to proceed with the application. Since the Respondent does not appear to have been prejudiced, and has in fact condoned the delay, I consider it appropriate and just to allow the application to continue as a specially managed proceeding.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
5. The application shall continue as a specially managed proceeding.
2. The Applicant shall, no later than November 30, 2004, submit a joint schedule for completion of the remaining steps in the proceeding, or requisition a case management conference to fix a schedule.
"Roger R. Lafrenière"
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-2420-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: PETRO-CANADA
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
MATTER CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 380
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAFRENIÈRE, P.
DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2004
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Al Meghji
Mahmud Jamal FOR THE APPLICANT
John Shipley FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20041022
Docket: T-2420-03
BETWEEN:
PETRO-CANADA
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER