Canada (Attorney General) v. Bailey

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bailey
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-12-04
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 484
File numbers
A-543-01
Decision Content
Date: 20021204
Docket: A-543-01
Montréal, Quebec, December 4, 2002
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
TONY BAILEY
Respondent
ORDER
The motion is dismissed.
"Robert Décary"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
Date: 20021204
Docket: A-543-01
Montréal, Quebec, December 4, 2002
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
TONY BAILEY
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed for the reason that it has become moot.
"Robert Décary"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
Date: 20021204
Docket: A-543-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 484
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
TONY BAILEY
Respondent
Judgment rendered at Montréal, Quebec, on December 4, 2002
without an oral hearing
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
Date: 20021204
Docket: A-543-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 484
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
TONY BAILEY
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] Counsel for the parties agreed that this appeal has become moot and should be dismissed.
[2] Nevertheless, they asked the Court to rule that the trial judge made a significant error of law, which could form a precedent, in criticizing the chairperson of the Cowansville institution tribunal for taking into account the report of an agent who did not testify.
[3] Counsel told the Court that they agreed that the report should be entered in evidence without it being necessary for its author to testify. It appears that this is standard practice before this administrative tribunal, which has control of its procedure.
[4] The procedure suggested by counsel is inadmissible. Either the Court hears the appeal or it does not hear it. If it chooses to hear the appeal, it clearly cannot dismiss the latter if it comes to the conclusion there was a significant error.
[5] The alleged error is one of fact rather than law. If the judge had said that the report was not admissible in evidence on a matter of principle, we might have agreed to hear the case, but that is not what he said. In the circumstances, there is no reason to hear an appeal which has become moot.
[6] Counsel's motion will therefore be dismissed and the appeal dismissed on the ground that it has become moot.
"Robert Décary"
Judge
"I concur.
Gilles Létourneau, Judge"
"I concur
Marc Nadon, Judge"
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20021204
Docket: A-543-01
Between:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
TONY BAILEY
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-543-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
TONY BAILEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
DATE OF REASONS: December 4, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Dominique Guimond FOR THE APPELLANT
Daniel Royer FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE APPELLANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Daniel Royer FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec