Appleby v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court headnote
Appleby v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-08-27 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 939 File numbers T-939-01 Decision Content Date: 20010827 Docket: T-939-01 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 939 BETWEEN: DONALD APPLEBY Applicant - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BLAIS J. [1] This is a motion for an interlocutory order of mandamus compelling the respondent to perform its duty to grant access to the applicant's prescribed medication. [2] First of all, it has to be noted that the applicant is representing himself and he is not very familiar with the Federal Court Act or the Federal Court Rules. [3] I should also mention that it is obvious that someone else, not clearly identified, has helped the applicant write this motion and, as I mentioned verbally at the hearing, this work was done by someone who is not a lawyer and some information that was given to the applicant and to other applicants in similar cases was not very helpful to him nor to the Court. Those documents were probably prepared in good faith but the preparation of those complex files needs more than good faith, and I cannot say more than state that the applicant should get help from a lawyer. [4] I have carefully reviewed the documents provided by the applicant. [5] He makes the request that the Court order the respondent, the Minister of Health, to increase the limit of three flowering plants imposed on him. [6] I have carefully explained to …
Read full judgment
Appleby v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-08-27 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 939 File numbers T-939-01 Decision Content Date: 20010827 Docket: T-939-01 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 939 BETWEEN: DONALD APPLEBY Applicant - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BLAIS J. [1] This is a motion for an interlocutory order of mandamus compelling the respondent to perform its duty to grant access to the applicant's prescribed medication. [2] First of all, it has to be noted that the applicant is representing himself and he is not very familiar with the Federal Court Act or the Federal Court Rules. [3] I should also mention that it is obvious that someone else, not clearly identified, has helped the applicant write this motion and, as I mentioned verbally at the hearing, this work was done by someone who is not a lawyer and some information that was given to the applicant and to other applicants in similar cases was not very helpful to him nor to the Court. Those documents were probably prepared in good faith but the preparation of those complex files needs more than good faith, and I cannot say more than state that the applicant should get help from a lawyer. [4] I have carefully reviewed the documents provided by the applicant. [5] He makes the request that the Court order the respondent, the Minister of Health, to increase the limit of three flowering plants imposed on him. [6] I have carefully explained to the applicant the jurisdiction of this Court and particularly that I cannot increase the limit of plants imposed in him. [7] In the recent decision Neron v. Canada (Attorney General) [2001] F.C.J. No. 1010, FCT 683, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum said: I am satisfied that even if I were to have sufficient evidence before me that would enable me to grant the interim order requested, Rule 372 is meant to safeguard an applicant's right in the case of an urgency and pending disposition of proceedings. The issue before me is not a preservation of a right. The applicant will not lose any right if I do not grant the interim order he now requests. It simply means, and I do not minimize the seriousness of his request, that the applicant would have to proceed with an application for judicial review by serving and filing such an application with supporting affidavits from himself and from his doctor or doctors, if that is his desire, and then make a request pursuant to section 18(2) of the Act, again with the necessary evidence. [8] Therefore, I have no other option than to dismiss this motion for a mandamus. Pierre Blais Judge MONTREAL, QUEBEC August 27, 2001
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca